Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 26 April.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 April.

EPSOM AND WALTON REGULATIONS

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I beg to move,
That the Committee on the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect Walton Downs, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel, Agent or other representative.
Hon. Members will be aware that in this House Private Bill Committees rarely make visits and cannot do so without the leave of the House.
That leave has certainly not been given indiscriminately in the past but has been granted where the physical features of a site are an issue being considered by a Committee.
The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), has represented to me that the Committee would indeed be greatly helped on this Bill by seeing the site for themselves, and I am happy to support him by moving this motion.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday 25 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the forecast expenditure under the common agricultural policy has increased since the date when he last answered oral questions on the subject; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): There has been no further change in the forecast expenditure for the United Kingdom compared with the answers I previously gave.
At the meeting of the Council of Ministers this week it has been indicated that the budget for the Community will require a supplementary budget later this year.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that only a few days ago the other Tory Commissioner Tugendhat, said that agricultural expenditure was getting out of control? Which Tory Minister or Commissioner must hon. Members believe?

Mr. Walker: Unfortunately, there is only one Tory Commissioner, so there is no difficulty in deciding who to believe.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a major switch that has taken place in common agricultural policy funding is from funding surpluses of more temperate products, such as milk and dairy produce, to more Mediterranean products such as olive oil and wine? Does he consider there is a case for more regional co-responsibility for financing the surpluses of Mediterranean produce, which are consuming a larger proportion of the CAP budget?

Mr. Walker: The possibilities of that are interesting and important. There are two major reasons for the major increases. First, the 1982 growing year for virtually all products in the Community was outstandingly good. Production was much higher than anticipated. Secondly, the currency exchange rate agreements that took place in March, at which several countries demanded substantial revaluations and devaluations of their currencies, enabled them to make green currency changes that are costly to the Commission.

Mr. Buchan: I do not wish to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He cannot just say that there will be an additional budget statement. The House must know how much. I trust that he will give the House that information this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to distinguish between a Tory Minister and a Tory Commissioner, can he distinguish between the Tory Commissioner and the Tory Daily Telegraph, which stated this morning that farm prices are 35 per cent. above last year's figure?

Mr. Walker: I am quite certain the Daily Telegraph did not say that farm prices are 35 per cent. up——

Mr. Buchan: Spending.

Mr. Walker: One of the major reasons for the increase in farm spending is the revaluation of currencies. I would hate to be in any way politically biased, but several Socialist economies have demanded large revaluations.

Aujeszky's Disease (Eradication)

Mr. Mark Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs in how many herds have so far been slaughtered under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Authority has been given to slaughter over 94,000 pigs in 92 herds.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that information. Will the Minister confirm that adequate arrangements have been made to prevent the importation of both classical


swine fever from Brabant and other parts of the Netherlands, and of African swine fever from Sardinia and Piedmont? Will the Minister accept that the burden of the levy for this level of slaughter on a hard-pressed pig industry is very considerable and that she should take steps to assist the pig industry by providing funds for the vet service or for other assistance?

Mrs. Fenner: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, is that pigmeat does not represent any significant risk. The live pig trade is very small and bilateral arrangements cover that. There is another question on the Order Paper about the pig industry, which may answer some of the hon. Gentleman's other points.

Pig Industry

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the state of the pig industry; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take further steps to improve the profitability of pig production.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last had a meeting with the president of the National Farmers Union; and if they discussed the subject of profitability in the pig industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have been in close contact with all concerned with the situation in the pig industry.
As my right hon. Friend informed the House on Monday, we have successfully negotiated in Brussels substantial increases in export refunds, amounting to 60 per cent. on whole carcases and main cuts. This, I know, will substantially improve the opportunities for pigmeat exports. I have also decided to relieve the meat industry of the cost of veterinary inspections in those plants which are eligible to produce meat for export, by meeting these from public funds, with offsetting savings in other areas of Government expenditure. Details of these arrangements will be announced shortly.
We have therefore succeeded in making the two changes the industry told me were of most importance in helping it to improve its competitive position in overseas markets.

Mr. Haselhurst: I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, which I am sure will be most welcome to the hard-pressed pig industry. To what extent will it relieve those pig farmers who have heen in the most difficulty at this low point of the cycle?

Mr. Walker: I candidly admit that the pig industry faces a period of difficulty. Last year, production substantially increased and we have had to dispose of that increased production. At the request of the pig industry, slaughterings are taking place under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme. Therefore, I cannot say with any certainty that the pig industry will face easier times in the immediate future. However, I am sure that the crisis that the pig industry is now going through will ultimately result in its maintaining a more permanent and important export position. In the past that position has been enjoyed by the Dutch and the Danes and it would give much greater long-term stability to our pig industry.

Sir Michael Shaw: Is my right Friend aware of the widespread pleasure that his statement will give? Is he further aware that there is widespread feeling in the industry, and certainly in my constituency, that the unfair burden placed on pig breeders because of the extra cost of feedstuffs in this country is to be deplored and that it must be put right before profitability can be restored?

Mr. Walker: In my statement on the meeting of the Agriculture Council I shall refer to that in a way that might be helpful to the industry.

Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind two further points? Although I congratulate him on what he has dome, will he urge producers to show restraint? With 22·7 pigs per year per sow, it is ridiculous to overproduce. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that curers do something about an improvement in British bacon standards?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, there was a substantial increase in production last year. In the early part of 1982 our pig producers were enjoying good prices and very reasonable profits. The immediate result of that was a very speedy and substantial increase in production.
I hope that the charter bacon scheme, which is getting under way and having considerable influence, will begin to improve the marketing performance of British bacon in our markets.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I welcome the Minister's statement on veterinary and other matters, but will he accept that unless the incorporation of subsidised rates of feedstuffs is thought desirable and necessary in this corn year, pig producers in this country will still have major difficulties?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are considerable problems with the incorporation process. As I have said, I shall mention that later in my statement this afternoon.

Mr. Hudson Davies: I welcome what the Minister has said. However, to revert to the rather cursorily treated question of Aujeszky's disease, does not the Minister feel in retrospect that the levy represents a substantial inposition on the industry? When it is quite clear that the disease can be eradicated, to the benefit of all, should not the Government contribute to this exercise?

Mr. Walker: Anyone who occupied my office will know that a whole range of diseases affect British agriculture. If they were considered objectively, Aujeszky's disease would not be given top priority. The pig industry made a request to me that it would like to fund an eradication programme if I could provide the cost of the services for fulfilling that programme. I agreed to it on that basis. If more money were available and I were asked to put more Government money into disease eradication, I would consider a whole range of options apart from the one under debate.

Potatoes

Mr. W. E. Garrett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total consumption of potatoes for the months of January, February, March and April, 1982; and what percentage of the total was imported.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Approximately 2·1 million tonnes of potatoes moved into human consumption in the United Kingdom during the period January-April 1982. Imports accounted for about 19 per cent. of this total.

Mr. Garrett: Does the Minister accept that those figures show that the much-maligned potato still plays a substantial part in our diet? Will the Minister monitor carefully the attempt to import inferior types of potato from our Common Market partners, and make every effort to ensure that the gap between the winter and summer crops in the United Kingdom is still filled by potatoes from our traditional sources? Those potatoes are of a high quality and often come from outside the Common Market.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The British potato is not maligned. It is an excellent food and is increasingly used as a base for other processed food products. I wish good fortune to all those who operate in that area. We have sought to encourage greater awareness on the part of producers in supplying to the processing industry as well as for direct human consumption. There is considerable scope for replacing imports there.

North Sea Cod

Mr. John Townend: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a United Kingdom quota for North sea cod has been agreed for 1983.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Proposals for catch quotas for 1983 have not yet been submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Until 1983 quotas are settled the Council has agreed that fishing activities should continue to be based on agreed 1982 quotas.

Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the livelihood of Bridlington fishermen largely depends on North sea cod? When negotiations are further advanced, will he ensure that the quota will be adequate to fish throughout the year, so that there is no danger of the boats having to tie up in December, when other species are not available, as has happened in the past?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of that stock. I am sure that he will welcome, as the House does, the fact that for 1982 we negotiated a 47 per cent. quota of that stock for the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend has noted that such quotas have staying power. Once we know what the total allowable catches are, we shall continue to negotiate for a big share of them.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister be good enough to tell us how the common fisheries policy has worked so far? To date, have there been any cases of poaching? What does the fishery protection squadron think about the behaviour of our partners in relation to the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is too early to make a full assessment of exactly how a policy with such major implications is working. Without being in any way complacent, I would say that there have not been too many problems, particularly about poaching. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our protection forces have shown themselves to be thoroughly effective in several ways.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that any cut in the North sea cod quota will be very badly received in Grimsby? Will he comment on the accuracy of reports that so many "paper" fish were created to up quotas to obtain a common fisheries settlement that draconian measures are now being considered to limit catches of North sea cod and other species? Will he accept that any restriction on catches, by limiting the period in the year during which British vessels can fish, would be a disastrous blow for a Grimsby and English fishing industry that is already crippled with debt, and very hard-pressed?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said a few minutes ago, I accept the importance of that stock to ports such as Grimsby. In return, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept and acknowledge that, in the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we negotiated a staying power for those quotas and intend to see that it is observed.

Food from Britain

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any measures are being taken by the Food from Britain organisation to help profitability in the pig industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: The council of Food from Britain is well aware of the problems of the pigmeat industry. It must determine its priority areas of activity, but I know that it is actively considering projects to improve our marketing of pigmeat products at home and abroad.

Mr. Griffiths: I congratulate Mr. David Samworth and my right hon. Friend on their vigorous efforts to help. May I ask for more assistance to reduce the red tape that interferes with British pigmeat exports, to reduce the cost of inspections of slaughterhouses and to assist the industry to get rid of Aujeszky's disease?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend had not arrived in the House when, in answer to an earlier question, I announced that we were taking on the veterinary costs of inspection of slaughterhouses involved in the export trade. That problem has been dealt with. The red tape, the detail and export problems have been examined by the industry and the Government and various actions have been taken to improve matters. Also in reply to an earlier question I made it clear that the proposals on Aujeszky's disease, which the industry asked for, were accepted by the Government only on the basis on which they were put forward.

Mr. Buchan: Although I thank the Minister for what he has said so far, he will realise that it does not go nearly far enough to deal with the real problem of the pig industry, which is that of costs. I hope that he will say unequivocally in his statement that he has fought for and achieved an incorporation scheme of subsidised grain output from storage for pig farmers. He has talked too much about marketing and not enough about direct aid to that side of the industry or the processing industry.

Mr. Walker: I note with joy the eager anticipation with which the hon. Gentleman awaits my statement.

Winter Cereals

Sir Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of winter cereals has been sown in the current year compared to the previous three years.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only information so far available is the area of wheat and barley sown in Great Britain by 1 December 1982. That was 2·42 million hectares, compared with 2·10, 2·20 and 2·46 million hectares by the same date in 1979, 1980 and 1981 respectively.

Sir Peter Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Do not those figures show a disturbing trend in British agriculture towards more and more cereals and less and less stock? Is not the imbalance in British agriculture serious? Will he bear in mind that that imbalance has a spin-off in terms of the preservation of the rural scene? Does he agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we get the balance right?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that I share his anxiety about the balance of British agriculture. I am sure he will agree that recently we have succeeded in achieving lower price increases for cereals than for other products. I am delighted that that differential is to be continued, according to the proposals from the Commission on the price fixing. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to fight for that.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that, since 1973, wheat acreage has increased by about 50 per cent. and that we now export about 1 million tonnes of wheat each year, whereas in 1973 we hardly exported any? How can the Minister hope to pursue the objectives that he has just mentioned when there is an open-ended subsidy from the CAP of £70 to £80 for every tonne of grain that is exported from Britain?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair and will acknowledge that one of the great successes of our cereal industry is the way in which it has adopted new techniques, varieties, chemicals and fertilisers. To a considerable extent, the increase in our production of cereals is related to much greater efficiency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.

Sir Hector Monro: Although I appreciate the undoubted efforts of my right hon. Friend to improve the differentials between grain and livestock, does he agree that we have not moved fast enough? Can he now increase the incentives for livestock, even if we cannot do anything now about grain this season?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend represents an important livestock area, I know that he will welcome what we have achieved in the past few years with regard to the improvement of the beef premium, the considerable improvements in hill livestock compensatory amounts and the introduction of a sheepmeat regime, which is of enormous benefit to the consumer and producer. That catalogue does not demonstrate a lack of interest in our livestock industry.

Mr. Jay: In view of the wise words of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), is the Minister aware that, in the past year, barley grown in Sussex has

been exported to the Soviet Union at about half the price that the British farmer or pig producer across the road has to pay? Is that sane economics?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the efforts that we have made in the Community to restrain price increases for products, such as cereals, which are in surplus. The Commission has set an objective, which we support, that cereals should be more closely aligned to world prices. I should like that objective to be achieved.

Mr. Maclennan: I recognise the force of what the Minister said about increased productivity and improvement in techniques contributing to the increase in cereal growing. With respect to the period of time that he quoted, can he say to what extent grassland has been brought under the plough?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Some extra grassland has been brought under the plough as a result of the expansion of cereal production. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have as much right as any other cereal-producing country to export cereals as well as to produce them for our own consumption. One of the most encouraging developments of recent years has been the increase in exports by United Kingdom producers to countries outside the EC as well as to other EC countries.

Malting Barley

Mr. Henderson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the likely level of demand for malting barley in the coming season.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not possible at this stage as it will depend on several factors, including the quality of the crop and export demand.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that British maltsters are fully aware of the excellent quality of the malting barley that is produced throughout Great Britain, especially in east Fife? Will he also ensure that they are fully aware of the excellent production levels that are being achieved? Does he agree that there ought to be no need for them to look abroad for their supplies?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. One of the greatest recent successes is the dramatic increase in exports of malt from the United Kingdom to other Community countries and countries outside the Community. That is the result of the high quality of the barley and the quality of the malting process.

Forest Land

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area and value of forest land being sold or in the process of being sold under the provision of the Forestry Act 1981.

Mrs. Fenner: Between the passing of the Forestry Act 1981 and 31 March 1983, the Forestry Commission received £18·9 million from the sale of land and other real assets. The area involved included 9,433 hectares of forestry land and plantations.
As at 31 March, a further 40,877 hectares of forestry land and plantations, with an estimated value of £29 million, were also in the process of being sold—that is, they were either on the market or had been approved for


sale and reserve prices had been fixed. Other real assets committed for sale at 31 March are expected to realise a further £3·6 million.

Mr. Canavan: As the original sales programme seems to have escalated from £40 million over three years to £82 million over five years, when will this doctrinaire public asset-stripping stop? Why will the Minister not tell us the purchase price and who the purchaser or potential purchaser is in each sale? Is that official secrecy designed to stop the public finding out that thousands of acres of the best forest land, most of which is in Scotland, are being hived off by the Tories at give-away prices to their rich friends?

Mrs. Fenner: I refute utterly the absurd allegations of the hon. Gentleman and point out to him that the original programme of disposals to a value of £40 million over the three years to 31 March 1984 has been revalued to take account of inflation, and a further two years added. That gives a revised disposals programme of about £82 million. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the absurdity of his exaggerated charges by telling him that just under 1 per cent. of forestry land has been disposed of.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that hon. Members of other Opposition parties regret the Government's decision to sell forestry land, which provides badly needed work in rural areas? Forestry land has been abandoned in my constituency. What are the future plans for sales? Will there be further sales during the next two or three years?

Mrs. Fenner: I do not accept the allegations in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. All of those who have bought forestry land have done so as going concerns for forestry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Forestry Commission has the authority to give licences for the felling of trees, and has the power to insist on replanting. That shows the absurdity of his comment that forests are being abandoned. The original disposals were planned to be carried out over three years. This matter is dealt with each year when we discuss public expenditure, and it would be impossible for me to forecast future sales.

Mr. Bulmer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that where forests are to be sold in areas of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps adjacent to land owned by the National Trust, those concerned with protecting the integrity of the landscape are given the earliest possible warning by the Department?

Mr. Canavan: Especially for apple trees.

Mrs. Fenner: Notification of sales is given in the Estates Gazette. Neighbours of such plantations would be informed about sales.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a question from me on 30 March about the use of funds raised from the sale of forestry land, told the House:
All the money is ploughed back into the forestry industry?"—[Official Report, 30 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 336.]
Will the Minister now set the record straight by telling us that all the money goes straight to the Treasury?

Mrs. Fenner: It is reasonable for the Government to make the most efficient use of public assets in the context of restraining public expenditure generally. The hon. Gentleman should know that the commission receives

adequate sums of public money each year by way of grant-in-aid to fund its agreed programmes. The money that it receives is almost four times the amount retrieved by the disposal programme.

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure whether that is a denial of the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, it is.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the money was being ploughed back into the industry, but the hon. Lady says that there will be no such hypothecation in relation to the Treasury. Will she ensure that the two Departments liaise so that we no longer get such misinformation either from her Department or from the Scottish Office?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in the common agricultural policy price negotiations.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage of agreement has been reached in the Council of Agricultural Ministers on the current year's agricultural price fixing.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall be reporting fully to the House on the progress of discussions on the price axing in the statement which I intend to make later this afternoon.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall call him early on the statement.

Fat Cattle

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how many weeks in the current year the maximum premium has been paid on fat cattle.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The maximum rate of beef variable premium is estimated to have been payable in 14 weeks so far this year.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure shows the absolute necessity of having the beef premium scheme if we are to have a healthy and strong livestock industry in Britain? Will he confirm the Government's total commitment to its continuation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. Last year we obtained almost a 50 per cent. increase in the maximum that we could apply under this scheme. It is of immense benefit to the industry and we shall continue to stand by it.

Mr. Hicks: In view of the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even by my right hon. Friend himself this afternoon, does he agree that it is essential that our livestock producers are assured that the scheme will continue, so as to prevent a greater imbalance developing between the livestock and cereal sectors?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The scheme must continue, because it is of immense benefit to the industry. Although


I am anxious about the numbers in our specialist breeding herd, it is significant that there has been an increase in availability from the dairy herd, which provides about two thirds of our beef supplies.

Mr. Deakins: As we all agree that the scheme is of great benefit to the livestock industry, why cannot a similar scheme be introduced for pig producers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of agriculture, the speed with which numbers can increase in the pig industry and its cyclical nature are such that a similar scheme is not appropriate.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall the correspondence that he had with me and others about the difficulty of getting clean cattle, especially black and white cattle, certified under this scheme? As he said that he would meet the National Farmers Union to consider the matter, will he inform the House of the latest state of play?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Anxiety about this matter has been expressed by farmers in many parts of the country. If there are complaints, I should be happy to investigate them. We monitor the way in which the grading classification is carried out, and I wish it to be done without unfairness.

Wheat Growers

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that United Kingdom growers of wheat are securing equivalent advantage of intervention arrangements to those being utilised by other countries of the European Community.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The requirements for the acceptance of wheat into intervention are laid down in European Community regulations, which are applicable in all member states, and there is only very limited scope for national variations.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety within the British poultry industry that British-grown feed wheat is being exported to the Community to replace French feed wheat that has been placed in intervention at a higher price due to a differential standard of application of the test between hard and soft wheat? Can my right hon. Friend assure the poultry industry that there are adequate stocks of British-grown feed wheat for our poultry industry for the rest of this season, and that poultry farmers will not be financially disadvantaged by the curious anomaly that has arisen because of the different interpretation of standards?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the problems in relation to cereals, not only for pig producers, but for poultry producers, who are equally affected by the serious position. My hon. Friend is right to say that there appears to be a discrepancy in some of the results of the tests. We have discussed the matter with the Commission, as has the trade, but so far an appropriate test that could be introduced throughout the Community on an equal basis has not been identified. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to pursue the matter, because I am not satisfied with the present position.

Mr. Maclennan: Why are the tests applied in Britain more strict than those applied in other countries of the Community?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that they are stricter, I should be grateful if he would show it to me. From my inquiries I have found that, although there appear to be some discrepancies in the results, the standard of the test is not always the reason.

Agricultural Expenditure

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the current level of expenditure in the European Community on agriculture.

Mr. Peter Walker: Between 1978 and 1982 the common agriculture policy's share of the Community budget fell progressively. I have, however, expressed my concern in the Council of Ministers about the increased rate of agricultural spending that has occurred this year and is forecast for next year.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of increasing expenditure under the common agricultural policy is not just a question of costs but of the increasing possibility of a trade war between the European Community and the United States of America on surplus food exports? I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement later this afternoon, but can he satisfy the House that our colleagues in the European Community have taken the matter on board?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I think that they have. As my hon. Friend knows, a few weeks ago I went to Washington and spoke to American Ministers about this problem. We have obviously discussed this with the Commission. I am glad to say that the last talks between the Commission and the American Government were considered by both sides to be constructive and to have moved in the right direction. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that this is a matter of real concern, which the Commission must tackle.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister spoke of forecasts of next year's expenditure. Is it not a fact that, because of the unknown level of world prices, it is impossible to forecast the expenditure, which could rise beyond the resources of the EC? Will the Minister confirm that those two facts are correct?

Mr. Walker: Yes, it is difficult to forecast. I know how shocked the hon. Gentleman was last year when the expenditure for the CAP turned out to be 1·3 billion ecus less than was forecast.

Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister confirm that he is virtually the only Minister in the EC who wishes to see agricultural expenditure as a share of the Community budget reduced? Does that not show that there is no future for Britain in that organisation, because agriculture will always pre-empt the largest share of Community resources?

Mr. Walker: As long as agriculture is the only marketing scheme in the European Community, it will have a major share of the total expenditure. It is not the case that we are the only country that takes this view. West Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom made a declaration to that effect.

Heather and Grass Burning

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place between his officials and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the new heather and grass burning regulations.

Mrs. Fenner: In reviewing the 1949 heather and grass burning regulations for England and Wales my officials sought and received comments from more than 30 individuals and organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales took all views and opinions carefully into account when deciding the form of the new regulations.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, gave special protection to various categories of birds, but that the Government seem to be undermining all the good that they did there by allowing the burning of grass and moorland at times when some protected birds could well be at risk and nests, eggs and fledglings could be destroyed? Would it not be far better to discuss with the RSPB specific ways in which such birds can generally be protected, and not destroyed by burning, under these regulations?

Mrs. Fenner: As I understand it, the RSPB was not against the extension of the period. It had other views in response to the consultation paper, which we carefully took into consideration.

Sir Hector Monro: I accept the necessity for the new regulations on muirburn, but will my hon. Friend assure me that there will in future be consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's advisers on wild life?

Mrs. Fenner: There were consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that we consulted more than 30 organisations and he will know that it is difficult, with such disparate views, to satisfy everybody. However, I assure him that all the views that were put forward were carefully taken into consideration.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister reconsider her answer over the next few days? Is she aware that the RSPB was not consulted by her Department, despite being perhaps the major conservation body in the matter? Will the hon. Lady accept that the RSPB found out about the matter just before the period for consultation closed and that those consultations should have been taken rather more seriously?

Mrs. Fenner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not so. It is true that, because of a regrettable oversight, the RSPB was not on the original circulation list for the consultation letter, and I regret that, but that was quickly noticed and corrected and the deadline date for receiving comments was extended to ensure that the RSPB had sufficient time to reply.

Pesticides

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has plans to introduce further controls on the manufacture and use of pesticides.

Mrs. Fenner: The Government keep the pesticide safety controls under continuous review, in consultation wih all interests concerned, and modify them whenever necessary.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that as the EC has ruled that the protection scheme that was run in Britain was against the EC free trade regulations, and given the tragic example of 2,4,5—T, there is now a need to introduce new, tougher regulations?

Mrs. Fenner: No. In the light of the latest report from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Government are satisfied that there are no medical or scientific grounds for such action. The Commission's objections relate to the competition implications of our safety arrangements and I am discussing with the Commission how its objections might be met.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner for Chancellor Kohl.

Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House hopes that she has made a complete recovery from the hysterical outburst that we saw in the House on Tuesday? If she has, is she aware that no amount of smear or abuse against the leaders of the CND will deter the millions of people who see her policies as turning Britain into Reagan's European nuclear fortress? Will she take up the challenge to debate publicly with the CND why she will allow the siting of cruise missiles in Britain, yet refuse to seek any control for Britain over any possible use to which those weapons of mass destruction might be put?

The Prime Minister: If one wishes to retain freedom and justice in this country, including that for the CND, we must have the will, the means and the courage to defend ourselves. Conservatives have. The place to negotiate on nuclear weapons is at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Mr. Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend noticed this week that a constituent of mine—Mike Gratton—won the London marathon? In doing so he demonstrated that there is nothing wrong in cutting and running, provided that one wins. May I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that should she consider having a go in the near future, she would walk it?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on winning the marathon, which raised a tremendous amount for charity and was a successful occasion.
We hope to cut the number of seats held by the Labour party and to continue to run the country.

Mr. David Steel: As the electionitis that the Prime Minister has started can only be damaging to Britain, why does she not announce the date of the election?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I have ever done anything except answer questions that have been put


to me, and I shall therefore answer this one now. Such questions were first put to me towards the end of last year. May I make it perfectly clear that when I decide to have an election it will be announced in the usual way? Until then, in spite of all provocation, I shall not cut out any options. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Price: I congratulate the Prime Minister on being so frightened—or should I say frit?—of the bishops, doctors and journalists that she has decided to make an irresolute U-turn on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. What are the right hon. Lady's intentions on that Bill now that she has avoided bringing it back to the House for its Report stage for three consecutive weeks? Will she drop the whole thing now that there is no chance that the Bill will get through Parliament? Is giving way to the bishops and the doctors just a cosmetic act because she no longer intends to take the Bill through Parliament?

The Prime Minister: May I receive the hon. Gentleman's congratulations in the spirit in which they were offered? We shall continue with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the normal way. It is an important Bill and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent in the usual way by completing its passage through both Houses. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we shall carry on with the Bill.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent reduction in interest rates? Does she agree that interest rates, in both real and comparative terms, are still too high if industrial investment and the competitiveness of British industry are to flourish? Will she therefore confirm that further reductions in interest rates remain a prime objective of the Government's economic policy?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a believer in having interest rates as low as possible. I believe that the Government have done everything to try to bring down interest rates to ensure that the recovery gets well under way. What other nations do has an effect on interest rates, but I hope that they, too, will run their policies in such a way as to keep their deficits, as a percentage of GDP, as low as ours.

Mr. Foot: May I please congratulate the right hon. Lady on the brilliant piece of Government planning whereby the next unemployment figures are to be published on the Friday after the local elections? That is a rather curious choice of date, because normally they are published on a Thursday. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the colossal rise in unemployment and the consequent doubling of those forced to apply for supplementary benefit puts an enormous additional strain on the local authorities, and in particular on their social services and housing policies? How will she help that situation, which she has helped to create, by restricting the resources going to those authorities?

The Prime Minister: The dates on which the unemployment figures are due to be published are made

known weeks in advance. The date has nothing to do with the reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave—nothing whatsoever.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second point is that one must set priorities for resources and to have regard to the total, particularly if one is to control the Budget deficit and to keep interest rates down.

Mr. Foot: On the first point—just a minor matter, of course—did the right hon. Lady and the Government not know the date of the local elections when they selected the time to make the announcement? If the right hon. Lady examines the matter, I think she will find that that is the case. In view of the appalling burdens that have been placed on the local authorities, how much of the increase in rates since her Government came to office could have been avoided if they had not reduced Government grants?

The Prime Minister: The most important thing is the total expenditure of local authorities. That is the most important matter if one is considering that part of the burden of taxation that is accounted for by the rate support grant and rates. It is always the burden of taxation on our people about which the right hon. Gentleman never hesitates to complain. But the most important thing is to keep the expenditure down.

Mr. Foot: What is the extra burden that the right hon. Lady's Government have placed on local authorities?

The Prime Minister: Local authorities determine their level of public expenditure, not, unfortunately, the Government. Under the present law there is no way in which the Government can determine the total expenditure of local authorities. Indeed, one reason why the public sector borrowing requirement is way above what one expected is the increasing amount of borrowing by local authorities.

Sir Peter Emery: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend look at Forbes Magazine — the leading American business magazine—which states that the sick man of the industrial world, Britain, is likely to produce a minor miracle in the coming year? Will she, perhaps, refer that article to Opposition Members, because it is a very long and detailed analysis which shows that Britain's recovery is really under way?

The Prime Minister: I saw reports of that magazine, which I know goes to top business men, particularly in America. I note that, having looked at the economy of Britain, the magazine is very optimistic about Britain's future. I am cautiously optimistic. Such news, of course, is not good news for Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not time that the Prime Minister recognised that the BL workers have a real grievance in defending their six minutes' washing up and bathing time? If the Prime Minister supports the idea of the management of BL and of many other boards having two to three hour expense account lunches, if Members of the House of Lords can walk through and pick up £48 a day tax free for two minutes' nodding through the corridor, and if


Members of Parliament do not have to clock on at all, why is it not right that British Leyland workers should fight to defend that six minutes' washing up and bathing time?

The Prime Minister: The management of British Leyland is a matter for British Leyland. The company has two excellent cars—the Metro and the Maestro. Both have been financed totally by the taxpayer. Taxpayers, therefore, have put a great deal of faith in those who work for British Leyland. I hope that those workers will not return that faith by striking themselves and many other people out of jobs.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister what recent progress has been made over rehabilitation and reconstruction in the Falkland Islands and in improving the arrangements for unloading ships delivering equipment and supplies there.

The Prime Minister: There has been encouraging progress. For example, the islands' civil air service is now fully operational, the schools are functioning, new specialist staff are in post, and work is well in hand on road repair and new housing.
I have already written to my hon. Friend about port facilities. The position is improving. The Government freight agent co-ordinates dispatch of the vessels, and a member of his staff is assisting the Queen's harbour master at Port Stanley. Increased lighterage facilities have recently been made available there.

Mr. Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for her continuing close attention to these important matters. Will she confirm that urgent action is being taken to ensure that our armed forces are warmly and decently housed in the coming winter?

The Prime Minister: The Chief of Defence Staff has just returned from a visit to the Falklands and has reported that things are progressing excellently. I understand that Portakabin-type camps around the islands are now all but complete, and three floating hotels have been obtained to provide both accommodation and recreational facilities. One has been in use since January, another will arrive by the end of this month, and the third will arrive shortly afterwards. I therefore hope that, very shortly, all service men will be warmly housed, except where operational circumstances dictate otherwise. The news is good and the Chief of Defence Staff is very pleased and very complimentary about the excellent work of the armed forces.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no backtracking on the issue of principle

that the relatives of Argentines who lost their lives in the Falklands will be able to visit the dead and pay their respects? Will she confirm that that is the British Government's position and that, provided satisfactory arrangements are made, she will allow those visits to be made and not put any untoward obstacle in their way?

The Prime Minister: We stand by our statement that there is nothing against—indeed, we would be prepared to facilitate—a totally humanitarian visit to the graves of the Argentines on the Falkland Islands. We said that that visit should be organised and supervised by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a statement saying that it cannot arrange the visit because it cannot secure compliance with the essential conditions for ensuring that the expedition will be of an humanitarian nature only, and that if it were to go ahead the neutrality of the International Committee of the Red Cross would be compromised. However, the principle remains the same.

Engagements

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meacher: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister's record on inflation—down from 22 to 4 per cent. and then rising to 6 to 7 per cent. — is almost identical with that of the Labour Government — down from 26 to 7 per cent. then rising to 9 to 10 per cent.? Is not the real difference between the right hon. Lady and the Labour Government the fact that for exactly the same record on inflation she has brought about a three times greater rise in unemployment plus an 8 per cent. fall in living standards since 1979, compared with a 13 per cent. rise in living standards under Labour? Is that not the true measure of her failure?

The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot in any way challenge our record on inflation. The Labour Government did not get anywhere near a 5·3 per cent. rate of inflation, which is the present figure. New figures will come out tomorrow. The figure last month was 4·9, and at the moment it is 5·3. The hon. Gentleman cannot mention any figure in the last 12 years that came near to that. What is more, under his Government inflation went up to 26·9 per cent., far above our worst, which was 21·9 per cent. Thus, his worst was far worse than ours and his best was nowhere near as good as ours.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 APRIL — Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill. Motions relating to the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations.
TUESDAY 26 APRIL—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the Government attack on local government and community services. Motions relating to the National Health Service (Charge to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 27 APRIL—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill until about 7 o'clock. Afterwards, Second reading of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill.
THURSDAY 28 APRIL—Completion of consideration in Committee on the Finance Bill. Motions on the European Community documents 10657/82 on vocational training policies and 10235/82 on the European Social Fund.
FRIDAY 29 Amt.—Private Members' Bills.

[Debate of 28 April:


Vocational Training Policies
Doc. No. 10657/82


Commission opinion on the Review



of the European Social Fund
Doc. No. 10235/82

For relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee

see HC 34-vi (1982–83) para. 4
HC 34-iv (1982–83) para. 3]

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for some of the rearrangement he has made of next week's business in response to our request, but what he has proposed about the Finance Bill is not really a proper way of getting a Finance Bill through the House of Commons. He is bulldozing it through much too speedily. He should give more time for hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country who wish to make representations to have a chance to put their case. Will he, even at this late stage, look at the possibility of postponing a part of the consideration of the Finance Bill until a later stage?
I have asked time and again that we should have a statement from the Government on steel to allay the widespread fears, particularly at Ravenscraig and elsewhere. I hope that we shall have some assurance on that.
On the question of the citizens advice bureaux, I do not know whether there has been any progress. What has happened to the inquiry, what has happened to the Minister, what has happened to the appalling mess that the Government have made of it and when shall we be given further information on the subject?
On the training of probation officers, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, particularly with the Home Secretary sitting next to him, will understand that there is widespread concern in the service about the pay cut that has been imposed. There is to be a lobby on the issue next week. A strike is threatened and I believe a strike has never before taken place in the history of the service. I trust that

the right hon. Gentleman will give a clear assurance that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House at the beginning of next week.
With the Home Secretary on the Front Bench, I must say that we are glad that the Government have at last yielded to the representations that have been made throughout the country, and presented strongly from the Government Benches, about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. We are glad that they have made the concessions which a few days ago they were saying they would refuse to make. Nevertheless, would it not be better to take that mangy Bill away, screw its neck and never bring it back?

Mr. Biffen: Only the most partisan spirit could lead the right hon. Gentleman to describe the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill as mangy. It is a measure that we have been prepared to consider in the light of representations, and there is recent evidence of that. The House will have a full opportunity to consider all the points made in Committee in the reasonably near future.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions about the probation service, the Home Secretary, who is at my side, will have heard his request and doubtless will pay due regard to it.
I come to the question of the citizens advice bureaux and the felicitous inquiries which the Leader of the Opposition made about the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I assure him that tomorrow my hon. Friend will be in his place answering the Adjournment debate, and I should have thought that that was answer complete enough. There will be questions next week concerning the Department of Trade. I take note of the general concern on the subject. I know that my hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the inquiry into the CAB, and I take note of the concern that has been expressed on that.
As for a statement on steel, my right hon. Friend is considering the corporate plan. When he has completed those deliberations he will of course make a statement to the House.
I shall, naturally, pay regard to any anxieties that the Leader of the Opposition may express on the timing of the Finance Bill. I do not think a dispassionate observer would believe that what is now proposed bears the hallmark of bulldozing, but I take note of what he has said.

Mr. Foot: May we have an assurance that there will be a statement about the cut in pay of training probation officers?

Mr. Biffen: I am assured by the Home Secretary that there is no cut in their pay, but I shall convey to him what he has, of course, already heard —the anxiety of the Leader of the Opposition that a statement should be made on the matter.

Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the ill-fated Madrid CSE talks have now reopened. May we soon have a ministerial statement about them? Many of us are beginning to wonder how long the Russian troops will have to remain in Afghanistan and how long the people of Poland will have to go on being repressed before we all come to the conclusion that the relevant provisions of the Helsinki final act are not being observed.

Mr. Biffen: I shall at once draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to that point.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Leader of the House seen the list of Queen's awards for export achievement, which includes an award to A. and P. Appledore International, a Newcastle firm? Its achievement involves the export of British management skills and expertise to start up two South Korean shipyards. That amounts to exporting British workers' jobs and will result in the dumping of Korean-made ships in Great Britain. Does this not debase the Queen's award, and will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement next week?

Mr. Biffen: It does not debase the Queen's award on exports, because once this country began to disparage the export of services and goods which were related to development overseas — and which had a consequence for British manufacturing in this country—rather than merely the export of goods from this country, we should be showing a very narrow concept of our historic trading role. I cannot guarantee that there will be a statement on the subject next week.

Mr. John Roper: Can the Leader of the House explain why, once again, there is no reference to the debate on arms control and disarmament which we have been promised? Are we likely to have the debate during the first four years of the present Administration's life?

Mr. Biffen: I very much hope so.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the controversy that has broken out throughout the country and elsewhere about the film "Ghandhi"? Will he therefore arrange for the Minister for Trade to come to the House next week to make a statement about how much British taxpayers' money was involved in the film and what the Indian Government's financial contribution was?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should use his ingenuity during trade questions on Monday.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 451, signed by 91 hon. Members, about the report in The Guardian today alleging that there has been a Rayner proposal calling for savage cuts in the coastguard rescue service?

[That this House rejects any further cuts in H.M. Coastguard's rescue stations, equipment, telecommunications, manpower and responsibilities as recommended in the recent Rayner report commissioned by the Department Trade; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abandon any intention to force a change upon those rescued or assisted by the Coastguard Service and to wind up the departmental committee now investigating its practicality.]

In view of the urgent need for vigilance to protect seafarers off our coasts, and in view of some of the alarming evidence coming to light in the Penlee inquiry, will he arrange for an urgent ministerial statement to be made on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that no decision has been taken by the Department of Trade on the Rayner proposals. In view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Trade. Meanwhile, I

suspect that the hon. Gentleman will use his imagination to raise the matter when trade questions are before the House on Monday.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for a debate on the third report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on the new Parliament building?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I hope that it can be debated reasonably soon. I realise that there is general interest in the matter.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Is the Leader of the House aware that we have now had two major annual reports from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons both of which are highly critical of the appalling conditions in many of our prisons? We have had several other reports on individual establishments which point to the appalling conditions in which prisoners and staff have to live. May we have a debate on the report which was presented to Parliament and, if so, when?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the importance of the topic. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time, but I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House will recall that in recent weeks I have sought an assurance from him that we would have an early opportunity to debate, first, the House of Lords report on engineering research and development and, secondly, the ALVI report on the fifth generation computer project. These subjects are important and, in the second case, urgent. Will it be possible in the near future to debate both under a common heading?

Mr. Biffen: While I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, harsh realism tells me that it is unlikely that Government time will be available for such topics. However, I am certain that the problems that give rise to the reports have a fiscal consequence and, therefore, I should have thought that, with just a little imagination, possibly they could be raised on one of the days on which we shall be discussing the Finance Bill in Committee.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Leader of the House comment upon the propriety of bringing forward on Wednesday next the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill when it has not even had its First Reading? Such a debate flouts all the conventions of the House about the proper time lag between First and Second Reading. Although he may have consulted through his usual channels, does not he think that it would have been courteous for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he wanted to rush the Bill through, to consult the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which has already made recommendations on this issue to him? Rushing the Bill forward in this way without such consultation might be dangerously counter-productive.

Mr. Biffen: It is a matter of regret to me that the normal courtesies of allowing two weekends to elapse between the introduction of a Bill and Second Reading have not been observed in this instance. There was a desire to remove the uncertainty about the problem dealt with by the Bill by proceeding with it as speedily as possible. The Bill will be presented today after the statement and will be available


immediately thereafter. I should like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he was not informed and, more generally to the House, for the fact that the normal conventions have not been followed.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ensure that a copy of the report on design cost in the PSA is placed in the Library as it has been on the desk of the Secretary of State for the Environment for three months and for a month before that on the desk of his predecessor? Is the reason for the delay the fact that the report shows that it is cheaper to do the work within the PSA than to go outside to the private sector?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the unsatisfactory way in which the case of the Romanian was treated before he was sent back to Romania a few weeks ago, may we be promised a statement so that if that person, having been thrown out of Romania and now having left Austria, applies to come to this country and is refused entry by the Home Office we can hear from the Home Secretary the reasons for the refusal?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a hypothetical case but, none the less, one that I know commands the interest of the House. I shall certainly refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House consider making time available for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Caribbean and Central America?

Mr. Biffen: I know that it is an important subject, but I fear that I cannot promise an early debate upon it in Government time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister seem incapable of presenting the case outside the House for massive expenditure on nuclear weapons of mass extermination, is it possible that a debate on disarmament will be held in the near future and that it will be spread over two days so that all those who want to participate may have an opportunity to do so?

Mr. Biffen: As I said to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), I hope that the debate will take place in the reasonably near future.

Council of Agriculture Ministers

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers held in Luxembourg on 18–20 April. I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The meeting continued the negotiations for the 1983–84 price fixing. It started with a statement by the Commission on current trends in the 1983–84 expenditure.
The Commission informed the Council that an increase on the budgeted figure would be required in 1983. This contrasted with the position in 1982 when the outturn was less than budgeted, and resulted from a combination of factors including the monetary changes of 21 March, substantial increases in the production of major products, and trends in world prices.
The Commission also informed the Council that its previous estimate of the budget provision likely to be required for 1984 had to be revised upwards by 6 per cent. The Commission stated that its price proposals for 1983–84, which had been criticised by the majority of member states as being inadequate and substantially below current rates of inflation in Europe, would need to be adhered to. In discussion, seven of the 10 member states argued strongly that there was a need to improve upon the Commission's price proposals. Only one other member state argued with us that there should be no increases in the Commission's price proposals. The majority of member states strongly opposed the Commission proposal to reduce its original price increase for milk to an increase of only 2·3 per cent.
The meeting was adjourned to enable the Commission to consider its position. Following a meeting of the Commission held on Wednesday, it came forward with a revised package of measures upon which it hoped to complete the price fixing. The Commission reported that it had decided that it would not put forward any proposals for any further price increases on any of the major commodities. It further declared that it had unanimously decided that, irrespective of what the Council of Ministers itself should suggest, the Commission would not be making any proposals for further increases on the major commodities during this price fixing. I welcomed this statement.
In discussion of the package proposed by the Commission, while many member states still expressed a desire for further price increases, it was clear that the majority would, albeit reluctantly, come to a conclusion on the basis of the Commission's paper.
A major difficulty remained for Germany. The proposals made by the Commission for the revaluation of the German green currency would mean an increase in prices for Germany of the order of only 1 per cent. overall and no increase on the major commodities, milk and cereals. The German Minister could not accept this.
Primarily to allow further consideration to be given to this issue, the meeting of the Council was adjourned until next Wednesday, when an attempt will be made to conclude the price fixing on the basis of the Commission's current proposals.
The proposals, if accepted, would result in an increase of prices for the agricultural marketing year 1983–84 for


the United Kingdom of 2·3 per cent. on milk, 3 per cent. on cereals and 3·8 per cent. over all products. For the Community the overall increase would be 4 per cent., substantially below the anticipated inflation rate for the Community of 9 per cent.
In the United Kingdom, the effect on food prices would, over a full year, add 0·5 per cent. to the food price index and 0·1 per cent. to the retail price index.
We would retain the beef premium scheme and the sheep premium scheme. There would be a small improvement in the butter subsidy. These consumer subsidies would be worth between £200 and £300 million.
The school milk subsidy would be improved from 10·9p per pint to 12·4p per pint. The scheme would last for five years and the total benefit next year is likely to be of the order of £16 million. For Northern Ireland the various schemes assisting the beef producers would be extended and are anticipated to be of £11 to £12 million benefit to the Northern Ireland producers. The Commission has also proposed to move around 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland.
The proposals include a number of measures of benefit to our pig and poultry producers. First, these sectors would benefit from low cereals price increases. Secondly, the Commission would undertake to take account of regional difficulties in its management of the pigmeat market; this would mean, for example, that if market conditions warranted it the advantages of private storage facilities financed by the Community could be continued in the United Kingdom even if there were no need for such facilities in other parts of the Community. Thirdly, following the strong representations we have made, the Commission proposes to press ahead with a scheme to make available from intervention stocks cereals for use in animal feed. This would involve 2 to 3 million tonnes.
I hope that negotiations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I must congratulate the Minister on, as always, producing the kind of bland statement that conceals the crisis that at present faces us and the Common Market in relation to the continuing escalating agricultural cost on the budget of the EC. That is best exemplified by two sentences on the last page of his statement, in which he says:
The proposals include a number of measures of benefit to our pig and poultry producers. First, these sectors would benefit from low cereals price increases.
They would have benefited a great deal more if there had been no price increases.
This has been referred to as an interim statement. Is it an interim statement, or is it merely awaiting the German-French situation for clarification? May we take it that the prices referred to here are the final and complete prices?
Secondly, on the much-heralded argument on the incorporation scheme in order to help, at long last, our pig producers, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when this scheme will start? Is it, as Agra Europe has described it, a scheme mainly to benefit cereal producers or is it intended immediately, or at any rate quickly, to benefit our pig producers? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us at what rate the grain will be released from store for our pig producers? That is a glaring omission from the statement.
On the question of Northern Ireland, we welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about beef, but what is meant by the statement:

The Commission has also proposed to move around 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland"?
Is this an incorporation scheme? Is it to help the livestock producers and, again, at what rate will it be released.?
The Minister will agree that expenditure is now running at 330 million ecus per month over last year's costs. That means that there is an increased annual rate of cost of about £2 billion. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cannot multiply 330 million ecus by 12, someone will do it for him. This is what the Commissioner meant, is it not, when he said that the budget was getting out of control and that EC expenditure was endangering the EC itself.
It is not just a question of the price increase; the massive increase in production and at the same time the drop in world prices have meant that the cost will escalate even further. So we need some clarification on how it is proposed to deal with that.
The Minister has accepted that the budget will go bust, that the forecast of the amount of money needed to be paid by British and other Common Market consumers and by British and other Common Market taxpayers will be exceeded, and that an additional budgetary amount of 6 per cent. will be put in. How does the 6 per cent. tie up with the escalation figure of £2 billion that I have mentioned? The 6 per cent. cannot meet that. Therefore, we are likely to have a deficit on the budget of about £1 to £1·2 billion by the end of the year. That in itself, in the cost to Britain, would make the much vaunted rebate pretty small beer.
The important point—and this should have been dealt with in the statement—is that, if we have this kind of deficit, or any major deficit, and if it is accepted, how will we pay for it?
The two methods of paying for it — and there are only two at the moment—are the 1 per cent. of VAT and the cost of import levies. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to increase VAT for the British taxpayer? Does he intend to increase import levies and therefore put up food prices for the British consumer? Is that perhaps why the Government are flirting with the idea of a June election—because of the double imposition on the already hard-pressed average British consumer, with a family of four, paying about £5 a week in additional food costs because of our presence in the EC?

Mr. Walker: How?

Mr. Buchan: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the references, I can easily give them to him, but I am supposed to be asking questions. Three years ago the permanent secretary in his own Ministry gave the extra cost as £2·25 billion in relation to world prices because we were in the EC; and Lloyds bank—one can refer to no purer Tory bible than that bank — said that it was £3 billion extra to the British consumer because of Common Market prices.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the figures that we have here stand in regard to the promises that he gave not only at the time of the election but only a month ago? He claims a victory for having stuck to the Commission's proposals and not allowed any increase, but in March of this year he told us:
I still believe that a freeze on cereal prices this year would be far more sensible. We shall certainly press for that in the negotiations."— [Official Report, 3 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 388.]
Did he press for a freeze on cereal prices, because in this statement he has claimed that only one other member


argued with us that there should be no increase on the Commission's price proposals. The Commission's price proposals, however, were 4 per cent. above his "no increase". He had better come clean with the House in relation to that.
It is some victory that the right hon. Gentleman has had — like a boxer getting hammered all over the ring, getting beaten on points and claiming a victory because he was not knocked out. The right hon. Gentleman must do better by us.
The Government have had the benefit of an Opposition who did not continually sell the pass as the Conservative party did throughout our long fight to protect the British consumer and taxpayer from the worst excesses of the Common Market.

Mr. Walker: May I say how flattered I am that I have the one Shadow Minister who always asks questions that are longer than my statements.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's general remarks about the effect on food prices, just as an interesting throw-away comment, may I point out that the total food price increase of these proposals over a year is almost identical to the average increase in food prices per week during the period of office of the last Labour Government. As the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) made clear about two weeks before the last general election, nearly all those price increases were due to the Labour Government and not to the Common Market.
I dispute quite a few of the budget figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted. He knows full well that the upturn this year follows the reduction by 1·3 billion ecus from what was estimated under the budget in 1982. As a result last year there was a substantial reduction in the budgetary expenditure. This year there has been a change in world prices and also a considerable range of devaluations of green currencies, which are costly to the budget. They were in a number of countries that hold political views similar to those of the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, one is concerned about the present estimates, but they are being affected by a number of events — partly by revaluations of currencies and substantially by the outstanding production throughout the whole of western Europe last year.

Mr. J. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the division betwen the pig farmers on good land and the smaller farmers in less favourable circumstances is growing more apparent? The difficulty for my farmers and many others is that they are heavily in debt. The only hope for them is to increase their net income either by reducing costs or by increasing their gross income. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea—I suppose that it can be only a general idea—of the effect on farm incomes if the proposals, which are still to be negotiated, are put into effect?

Mr. Walker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the major improvements that has taken place during the lifetime of the Government in farming in the part of the country in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested is the considerable success of the sheep scheme. The price increases on the sheep scheme this year are substantially above those for cereals and milk.

Likewise, during the lifetime of the Government, we have increased the hill farm subsidies more than ever in the past, and we have also assisted that form of farming.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of the likely net financial effect on the hard-pressed pig producers of the measures that he announced today? Does he envisage that there will be a release of dyed grain or grain in some way made unsuitable for human consumption? Would not that help to solve both the problem of excess grain in store and the high cost of food for our pig producers?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend will recognise, there are considerable difficulties in releasing grain on to a market at a lower price than the general price. The details of the scheme are now being worked out by the management committee of the Commission. It has assured me that it will complete the work as quickly as possible. I guess that the 2 million to 3 million tonnes of cereals available to the Community through intervention will be available during the summer. I cannot say what the financial impact will be until I know the details of the scheme. The combination in the past few months of providing subsidised private storage, substantial export restitutions, eradicating the veterinary costs on exports and the schemes that I have announced has had a considerable impact.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: How can the Minister claim today that he was making strong representations to the Commission for the incorporation scheme when only a few weeks ago he told the House that it would be too costly to pursue it? Does not that mean either that the scheme that has been agreed will not make the difference to the pig producers that they need or that his earlier statement was wrong? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the sheep premium scheme but has not mentioned whether he has attempted to negotiate the most disadvantageous aspects of it — the clawback arrangements. Does he believe that the measures that he has outlined will do anything to arrest the decline in the beef breeding herd?

Mr. Walker: In the comments that we made on the incorporation scheme, we made it clear that there was immense difficulty in providing feed for a specific type of livestock producer at subsidised costs without affecting the costs in the whole market. We have always made it clear that we were endeavouring to negotiate with the Commission a method by which that could be done.
The hon. Gentleman's comments on the effect on the farmers and the provision of feed come ill from someone who taunted me only a few weeks ago, saying that what I was seeking in the price fixing was way below what the farmers required — the 7 per cent. proposed by the farmers in the Community, which included substantial increases in cereal prices.

Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the firm stand that he has taken. If he had not taken it, the prices would be considerably higher. Does he agree that surpluses will still continue and that it is the disposal of those surpluses that is so worrying? Is it not sad that a trade war could develop between the Community and America to the disadvantage of all? Will he turn his attention to that, because it would be sad and unprofitable?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir; that is an important aspect. As my hon. Friend knows, recently I went to Washington to speak to the American Administration about it. I am glad to say that the talks that have taken place more recently between the Commission and the American Government have not only been welcomed by both sides but both sides consider that important progress has been made. I hope that there will be a final agreement.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome in Northern Ireland for the movement of 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention? Will he do all in his power to ensure that it is made available at all possible speed to assist the hard-pressed pig and poultry sectors in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that we shall fully support him in his efforts to press for an early implementation of the larger scheme to which he referred at the end of his statement?

Mr. Walker: When the 75,000 tonnes is released out of intervention, the problem is that the transport costs are so burdensome to Northern Ireland producers. We shall urge that it is made available as quickly as possible. It is important that it is being made available not only to pig producers but to poultry producers. It involves barley as well as wheat, which is important for Northern Ireland. We strongly resisted proposals that there should be a clawback on the beef premium scheme, which the Government of the Irish Republic were demanding throughout the negotiations.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the growing hostility in Britain to the Common Market has nothing to do with the excellent principle of European union but has everything to do with the shambles of the common agricultural policy and the fact that annually the British people have to witness the spectacle of greedy agriculture Ministers in Europe going for higher and higher prices for their agricultural producers? Will he say to his colleagues in Europe that if they persist in those ludicrous and greedy demands for higher prices all that will happen is that the CAP will be bankrupted and the whole of European public opinion will turn against the institutions of the European Community?

Mr. Walker: Those were extraordinary remarks from the hon. Gentleman after a year in which, for example, food prices in this country have increased by only 1·6 per cent., which is the lowest increase for years. They were extraordinary remarks to make to a Minister under whom the price increases this year are basically half the average price increases during the period of office of the Labour Government. It will be interesting if the Labour party goes into the election saying that farm prices in Britain should be substantially slashed.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many hon. Members on the fact that he has nearly achieved the impossible, in providing something that is immensely acceptable to the farmers at the same time as protecting domestic prices? It is a major achievement. Will he turn again to the subject of pigs? Can he tell me—it is not clear to me from the statement—whether the grain that is released will be for use in the whole Community? If that is the case, how much would be available in Britain? Secondly, would he still be able to negotiate an open-ended arrangement so that if the

problems of feedstuffs for pig producers continue and a proper case could be made to agriculture Ministers, a greater release could be made?

Mr. Walker: The 2 to 3 million tonnes is for the Community as a whole. The allocation of that to various countries will be related to the requirements of each country and to the proportion of the total European livestock industry that it possesses.
In regard to future negotiations, obviously we will watch the details of the scheme to see how it operates and how effective it is, and to consider whether it is required in future. One of the most important parts of the agreement on pigs was that we obtained a declaration from the Commission that in future, instead of applying a policy on pig marketing over the whole Community, it would consider regional problems, for example, the problems of the United Kingdom, in isolation to find ways of helping.

Mr. Douglas Jay: In general, is it not clear that, because of low world food prices, far from there being any genuine reform of the common agricultural policy, the total costs of the policy and the economic burden on the United Kingdom are bound to increase still further?

Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, what he refers to as the world price is the price of the volume that is available at that time. If agricultural production in Europe is eradicated, world prices would become very high. I for one rejoice that Europe has stability and security of food supplies.

Mr. John Townend: As I have made clear to my right hon. Friend, a number of specialist pig producers in my constituency are in a desperate financial position. Does he think that the measures he has announced, which are much welcomed, will be sufficient and that they will become effective in time to prevent a large number of imminent bankruptcies?

Mr. Walker: One of the problems of the immediate future is the substantial increase that has taken place during the past year in pig production. As my hon. Friend knows, with his knowledge of the pig industry, at the beginning of 1982 pig producers were doing exceedingly well. There was then a massive increase in production which has affected current market conditions, added to which there has not been a tradition of exporting. I hope that the range of measures that we have taken in the past few weeks will ensure that in future not only a national but an international market is available to pig producers.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the poultry industry is under every bit as much pressure because of the cost of feedstuffs? Do I understand correctly that the feed incorporation scheme is designed to help the poultry industry as well as the pig industry, on the lines he has referred to for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his strong stand on behalf of the British consumer? Can my right hon. Friend confirm the statements in the press today that he effectively has a veto over any further increases in food prices and that he will apply that veto if necessary? What proportion of the EC budget will the common agricultural


policy take up this year? Will he confirm that, whatever may happen to the common agricultural policy, we will get any refund that is negotiated for the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: On the veto, the most important declaration of the Commission was that it had decided unanimously that, irrespective of any representations made by the Council of Ministers, it would make no further proposals for price increases in this price fixing. Other than on a Commission proposal, the only way that there could be a price increase under the rules of the Community would be by a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. John Silkin: Just the same as before.

Mr. Walker: No, that is not the same as before. This is an important difference. What the right hon. Gentleman has said refers to the majority voting last year. The difference is that on a Commission proposal, majority voting can, under the rules of the Community, apply. In the absence of a Commission proposal, there has to be a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, with the declaration that in this price fixing the Commission would refuse to make any further price proposals, the only way there could be an increase would be by a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. Obviously that would not take place, because I would veto it.

Mr. Robert Hicks: In view of the anxiety that has been expressed about the growing imbalance between the livestock and cereal sectors, does my right hon. Friend take the view that the tentative arrangements he has announced show a sufficiently favourable price differential for the livestock sector which will reverse the trend?

Mr. Walker: Taking the livestock sector in this country as opposed to the Community as a whole, during the period of this Government the position of the sheep producer has improved substantially. Dairy farming is in a healthy condition and is expanding. The decline in the beef industry has virtually halted. The improvements in the hill farm subsidy, the introduction of the sheep meat regime and the substantial improvement in the beef premium have helped the success of the livestock industry. The pig industry has had considerable difficulties. The measures that the Government have provided in the last few weeks should assist.

Mr. Eric Deakins: In regard to the record of the Labour Government, is the Minister aware that a large part of the food price increases in those years resulted from the transitional steps towards the common agricultural policy which were introduced and supported by him and the Government of whom he was a member? Further, is he aware that between 1974 and 1977 every

price review reported to the House by my right hon. Friends as Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were supported by him and his hon. Friends? Does he agree that on the one occasion in 1978 when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) opposed the price increase, the difference between the two sides was 0·35 per cent? The right hon. Gentleman made some earlier bold statements in the House and outside about price freezes on products in structural surplus. He has obviously made no attempt to argue in Brussels for nil price increases. Has he not retreated from Brussels, bought off with a share of the booty?
Is it not the case that what the right hon. Gentleman has given the pig industry on the one hand he has taken away with the other? Is the right hon. Gentleman not emerging as an exponent of a new type of Tory economics: that an extra cost to pig producers is a benefit to them? [HON. MEMBERS: "No".]
I invite hon. Members to read the Minister's statement. Can he tell us why the Common Market has not followed the example of the United States which for the past two years has put a price freeze on dairy products and in the past year has announced a 10 per cent. reduction in cereal acreage? The United States is doing its best to avoid a trade war. What is the Common Market doing to avoid a trade war, which in the opinion of many people has already begun?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the settlement means still higher surpluses for cereals, sugar and milk products? Does it not mean a still larger burden for the Community budget and for the United Kingdom taxpayer?

Mr. Walker: Before the hon. Gentleman makes such remarks, he should check the figures. If he would like the Community to come into line with the policy of the United States Government on dairy products, we would have to increase the price of Community dairy products by 20 per. cent. to reach current levels in the United States. He should not ask us to do as the Americans are doing on dairy products when their dairy prices are higher than ours.
As for cereals, before the hon. Gentleman uses that example, he should consider what the Americans are doing. They are providing their farmers with a handout of cereals from stores on exceedingly advantageous financial terms for one year only. The result will be that at the end of that year American cereal farmers will be in a better financial position and will be able the year after to increase substantially the production of American cereals. Again, before he makes such remarks, he should examine what is happening.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I can only refer to a parliamentary reply given by the then Minister of Agriculture who, when asked how much of the 110 or 120 per cent. increase in food prices during the period of the Labour Government had been the responsibility of the common agricultural policy, said 10 or 11 per cent.

Strangers Gallery (Admission Tickets)

Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that I raised with you yesterday the question of collaboration between hon. Members and demonstrators in the Strangers Gallery. You were good enough to say that you would make a careful study of the tickets issued. I rise to ask whether you are now in a position to identify the hon. Members responsible for yesterday 's disorder.

Mr. Speaker: As I told the House yesterday, I always look at the admission tickets when there has been a disturbance in the Gallery, as I like to know on which names people have been admitted. Sometimes they come through the ordinary Admission Order Office procedure. I have, however, looked at the names of hon. Members in relation to some of the people admitted to the Gallery, but not for all, because it is not possible to trace them all. I do not pass judgment on whether hon. Members were in knowledge. That is beyond me, because I have no evidence that they were. I know that the House will not expect me to give names, because that matter must be left to the Speaker himself. It would put me in a very invidious position if I had to stand up and recite names of hon. Members on suspicion. It would not be on evidence.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a great matter for the House itself. If it were seen as a new procedure that anyone with any objection could get a Member to provide five or six tickets so that a party could be brought into the House of Commons to demonstrate here, the whole House would surely condemn such a procedure.
Are you, Mr. Speaker, therefore able to tell the House whether it appears that a large number of persons who created a disturbance received tickets from perhaps just one or two Members who may have provided more than the usual one or two tickets? If that is indeed the case, surely there is a responsibility on Members to consider carefully to whom they issue tickets and to find out whether there is any likelihood of disturbance. That has always been the case. I believe that, as a matter of order, Back Benchers have the right to look to Mr. Speaker to defend their rights in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, I should state that this is a matter for the House of Commons, not for me. If the House wishes to change its rules and to require me to give names, the House must do so and give me instructions. Until that is so, I do not propose to put myself in the position of standing here and naming anyone from either side of the House.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I in no way wish to put the Chair or the Speaker in an invidious position, but if the Speaker has reason to believe that a Member or a number of Members issued tickets to people who then carried out a disturbance, is it not incumbent upon the Speaker, without necessarily giving names, to inform the House so that it does not happen again?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but I hope that we can then move on, as this is not a very profitable exercise.

Mr. Heffer: On one occasion I went outside with two tickets. When a lady asked whether she could have one of them, I said that she could. Shortly afterwards I looked up and saw her being thrown out of the Gallery for shouting "Down with British imperialism". Any Member could have a similar experience to mine.

Later——

Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it is the wilt of the House that we now leave that matter, but I shall take the point of order if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it will help the House.

Mr. Greenway: I simply wished to say that the honesty and integrity of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be commended to those other hon. Members who have been guilty of what he admitted.

Mr. Speaker: Well, at least one hon. Member is happy.

Members' Telephones

Mr. John Townend: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a matter that you may feel it appropriate to refer to the Committee of Privileges? For the past 24 hours——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the way to raise a matter of privilege. The House has changed its rules. If an hon. Member wishes me to look at a question of privilege, he should write to me and give me a chance to consider it.

Mr. Townend: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In the past 24 hours the telephone in my office in the Palace of Westminster has been out of order. When I requested that it be repaired, I was told that the engineers would not repair telephones because they were protesting about the Telecommunications Bill. Is that not an attempt improperly to influence a Member of Parliament, and should not steps be taken to ensure that Members of Parliament can carry our their duties without hindrance?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for authorities other than myself.

BILLS PRESENTED

PETROLEUM ROYALTIES (RELIEF) BILL

Mr. Secretary Lawson, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. John Wakeham, Mr. Hamish Gray, and Mr. John Moore, presented a Bill to confer on holders of petroleum production licences an exemption from royalties (including royalties in kind) in respect of petroleum from certain new fields off the coast of Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

EDUCATION (FEES AND AWARDS) BILL

Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Pym, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Mr. William Shelton, and Mr. William Waldegrave, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the fees charged by universities and other institutions to students not having the requisite connection with the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and the exclusion of such students from eligibility for certain discretionary awards: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Foreign Affairs Committee (Chairman's Draft Report)

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
The motion stems from the report in The Times newspaper of 18 April concerning the draft report of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the future of British foreign policy in relation to the Falkland Islands.
On Thursday last, the draft report was issued to the 11 members of the Committee and to six Clerks and advisers. Each copy bore the name and initials of the person to whom it was issued.
On Monday, an accurate summary of the draft appeared as the lead story on the front page and on another page of The Times. The story was clearly based on a close reading of the draft. No one reading both could doubt their consanguinity. Although phrases such as
members are understood to have concluded
and
The Committee … apparently found
are used, the story contains more than one unacknowledged but easily recognisable quotation from the draft and follows closely the sequence of paragraphs in the draft.
Furthermore, Philip Webster, The Times reporter whose name is given in the story, was able to reveal what no other member of the press could have known—that the draft was to be considered by the Committee on Wednesday. It had originally been intended to consider it on Monday, our usual day of meeting, and a press announcement to that effect had been made. We heard in last Thursday's business statement, however, that the House would be debating the Brandt report on Monday. As I knew that some members of the Committee wished to speak in that debate, I caused a slip of paper to be inserted with the draft report saying that we would not meet on Monday. No other announcement was made, and Philip Webster could have obtained his information from no other source.
It often happens that well-informed and diligent journalists, expert in their subject, can and do—with the aid, perhaps, of one or two friendly conversations in the Corridors of the House — piece together stories, the accuracy of which surprises hon. Members who thought that they were in possession of exclusive information. No, or hardly any, breach of our rules is involved and we turn a blind eye. In other instances, if the information improperly obtained is not of great moment to the outside world, again we sensibly take little notice.
I submit that this case is different. There has not been an indiscreet conversation in the Lobby or in one of the Bars about a minor matter. A report of a major political controversy, both at home and abroad and inside and outside the House, has been written up from a complete document which the Committee has not even considered, and which some members of the Committee had not, in the circumstances, had time to read before the report appeared.
I do not think that ignorance of our rules can be pleaded. Philip Webster is an experienced Lobby man, and his source can be presumed to know the rules. In any event, on the front page of the draft appeared these words:


The circulation of this draft report is strictly limited to members and staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The premature disclosure of contents of a draft report has in the past been regarded as a prima facie breach of privilege.
If the private deliberations of our Committees are to be revealed in this way, it will destroy the trust and confidence that have been established between hon. Members who work together on the Committees and make it impossible for the Committees to receive evidence, which may he considered confidential from a witness's point of view or in the area of public affairs, and generally diminish the value of the work of Select Committees.
On those grounds, I hope that the House will agree that the matter needs further consideration and that my complaint should be considered by the Privileges Committee.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I rise briefly to oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir. A. Kershaw). I do so not in the light of his speech—it would not have mattered to me what case he advanced, how he presented it, whether it was important or minor politically or otherwise—but because in 1975 I was responsible for raising a complaint against The Economist, which had reported a draft report of the Select Committee on the wealth tax. At the conclusion of the inquiry, when the report of the Privileges Committee was before the House, I repented and said that I regretted having raised the complaint in the first place. I repeated that expression of regret on 13 march 1978 as reported in column 31 of Hansard, when I again opposed the sending of journalists before the Privileges Committee—in that case from The Guardian and the Daily Mail—for revealing the draft report of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.
What purpose will be served in taking Mr. Philip Webster before the Privileges Committee? That journalist, if he is worthy of his trade, will not divulge his source. His source, as the hon. Member for Stroud has clearly implied, is a member of the Select Committee or one of the staff. One of the members of the Committee or one of the staff has dishonoured the rules of the House, not the journalist who obtained a copy of the report.
Why has The Times been singled out for this treatment? Similar reports, virtually word for word, appeared in The Scotsman last Saturday and in The Guardian on Monday, the same day as the article appeared in The Times. What did The Times do that the other newspapers did not do? It made the report the front page lead. In other words, the crime of The Times was prominence.
Bearing in mind what has happened in the past in respect of journalists and the Privileges Committee—I admitted my mistake in bringing a case before the House seven or eight years ago—I submit that there is no case to be made for hauling before the Committee of Privileges journalists who have carried out their trade, because we never find the source of their information. In any event, there is no justification for singling out The Times when other newspapers carried the same story.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Less on account of my interest in the Falklands and more on account of an experience that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—we have

shared the painful experience of being arraigned before the Committee of Privileges, in my case in the House before Mr. Speaker King on a matter relating to a problem in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) relating to Porton and chemical and biological weapons—I ask the House to be careful, to pause and to reflect before going headlong into a referral to the Privileges Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, we are in danger of shooting the wrong fox if we proceed. We could make ourselves as ridiculous as the Tory candidate in Cambridgeshire who, when faced with selection problems over blood sports, tried to ingratiate himself with the selection committee by telling Lady Crossley that he shot a thousand starlings every weekend. If we are not careful, we shall find ourselves in that situation.
The truth is that Mr. Philip Webster obtained the story a bit late. Even I did not bother to read it properly — and I read everything that is said on the Falklands — because it was a bit stale. I shall not read the entire article that appeared on the front page of The Scotsman on Saturday, but part of it states:
There are likely to be at least three weeks of intensive discussion in the committee before the report is finalised, and it may be that Sir Anthony Kershaw, the Conservative chairman, and his colleagues will alter the draft significantly, but there are clear indications that their report — which is being eagerly awaited by MPs of all parties — will be unwelcome in Downing Street.
It is understood that the officials' draft, prepared after months of interviews and public and private hearings in London and in the Falklands, comes down strongly in favour of a more positive diplomatic approach from the Government.
None of the MPs on the committee—which includes two Scots, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. George Foulkes—would discuss the matter yesterday. The committee are determined to keep their thoughts private until they reach final conclusions.
But it is reliably understood"—
Members can read the rest of the article that appeared in The Scotsman if they wish. The article gives a full and clear indication of what is in the report.
Over 20 years, I have had a genuine regard for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw). I put it to him that his instinct, if one can judge character, should have been to sort the matter out where it should be sorted out—in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I should like to refer to my own experience 14 years ago. The late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, for whom many of us had great personal affection although we had different political views, told me some years later that Ministry of Defence officials had prompted him to prompt others to raise the matter and to move that it should be taken before the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Member for Stroud is an honourable man. I think that one is entitled to ask him to tell the House whether he or any of his Conservative colleagues was subjected to pressure from sources within his party or elsewhere before deciding to move that the matter be taken before the Committee of Privileges.
The new rules properly require a letter to be written, because clearly we should not rush into these matters, but some time has elapsed. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman why it has taken so long to bring the matter before the House following the report on Saturday.
Political operations are conducted in the House. There is often a political operation by Downing street — perhaps as some form of pre-emptive strike to stymie an


embarrassing report. Anyone who has closely examined the way in which Mr. Bernard Ingham operated on the release of the Franks report must conclude that Downing street is at least capable of conducting such an operation. Do we detect the hand of Downing street on this issue? Furthermore, is it not grotesque to instigate the whole rigmarole of the Committee of Privileges on this matter when the Franks report—which, heaven knows, was a far more sensitive document — was leaked to The Scotsman 36 hours before it was published? Under the byline by its excellent diplomatic correspondent, Mr. Alexander MacLeod, I read not only much of the meat of the Franks report, but the somewhat idiosyncratic conclusion to which it came. It would take a positive genius to perceive not only the meat of the report but to reach a conclusion that was itself a non-sequitur.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that I was subjected to pressure and that I was late in coming to the House. I assure him, and I know that he will accept my word, that I was not subjected to any pressure. I decided — the House must decide whether I was right—that the article had been written from the report and that therefore a prima facie breach of the rules had been committed. As Chairman, I thought that I was obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
I did not read the The Scotsman, so I do not know about that. When I saw the article in The Times on Monday I compared it with the draft report, and I wrote to Mr. Speaker on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling yesterday and the House is now debating the issue. I cannot see it would have been possible to proceed more quickly.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept that the hon. Gentleman was not subjected to pressure. I shall assume also that none of his colleagues was in any way subjected to pressure by Downing street or from elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman cannot complain too much, because there is a bit of a mote in the Committee's eye. As many hon. Members were interested in the subject, the Committee took a long time over its deliberations on what many people considered to be an important matter that needed to be dealt with urgently. The old gibe that Committees are like a broody hen sitting on china eggs may apply to the Select Committee, as it has taken a long time to report. If it has not been dilatory, why has it taken so long?
There is much talk about consultations with Government Departments, which may be proper. Britain has a problem—which it does not share with the United States—in that it has a pool of talent from which the Executive is chosen. The relations between Ministers and members of Select Committees are totally unlike anything that goes on in Washington, where the Executive is chosen on a different basis. Therefore, the House is in deep water on the matter of privilege.
If we are to make comparisons, what about the leaking that has gone on from Cabinet Committees? I did not complain when the Chancellor of the Exchequer did all sorts of things which 10 years ago—let alone 20 years ago — would have been regarded as leaks about the Budget. However, since previous cases involving privilege things have changed rather. I think that the

Chancellor was quite right and totally justified in preparing the ground. Is there such a difference between being open about Budget secrets and dealing with the report?
I realise that there is a question of personal relationships in the Committee. I do not defend anybody who has leaked a report, but the argument is that it is better to deal with such an issue in the Committee rather than institute the elephantine and often disagreeable procedure of referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
The issue of misinformation must be taken into account. This was dealt with by the Select Committee on Defence. In the paper that is complained of today there is a statement on page 6 that the rear-admiral in charge of Hermes—at the moment in New York—said that there had been a decoy between Hermes and the Atlantic Conveyor—[Interruption.] I wish to give a current and topical example. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
No such assessment is known to have been made. The `Atlantic Conveyor' was one of a number of large vessels supporting the task force and was in no way treated as unique. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is `No".—[Official Report, 23 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 618.]
That is in direct conflict with the statement by the admiral and is an example of misinformation.
It is wrong that there should be one law for the House of Commons and a different law for the operation of No. 10 Downing street. What is right for No. Downing street is surely right for the House. It is the old question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Against that background, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr in opposing a reference to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Christopher Price: I hope that this House has higher standards than Downing street on this issue.
I declare an interest as both the Chairman of a Select Committee from which leaks have occurred and as a member of the National Union of Journalists. I believe that I can take a balanced view. This is supremely a matter for the House of Commons. On previous occasions when the House has divided on whether to send a matter to the Committee of Privileges, it has not necessarily divided on party lines. If we are to divide, I trust that we shall not divide on party lines, because this is an issue of principle for the House of Commons.
I oppose the motion, although I totally deplore the leaks from Select Committees. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), that the only solution to this problem is a proper relationship within the Select Committee. The proper way to sort out the problem lies with the members of the Select Committee. To send the problem now to the Committee of Privileges is a supreme example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The words have been printed, it is yesterday's journalism and another edition of The Times is being printed. The Committee of Privileges should not get mixed up with this matter.
I am one of the few hon. Members who have been on trial before the Committee. That happened in 1978. I make no complaint about that. Anyone who reads the final report might say that I was acquitted. Along with several of my


colleagues, I was arraigned before the Committee of Privileges. I gave evidence to it and it pronounced at the end of the day.
The job of the Committee of Privileges is to discipline Members of Parliament. That is the first job it ought to do. I do not think that any hon. Member should complain if the House votes, as it did on the ABC affair, for referring the conduct of certain hon. Members to the Committee of Privileges.
The other job of the Committee of Privileges is to implement the very important resolutions that we pass every Parliament before getting on with our business about giving false evidence to a Committee and other such serious offences. If I was told that someone other than a Member of Parliament had deliberately given evidence that he knew to be untrue, I would vote for sending him to the Committee of Privileges. However, to send a journalist to the Committee of Privileges when one knows perfectly well that his job is to obtain information, and that he could have obtained it only by a degree of collusion with a Member of Parliament, would be a fruitless operation.
The Committee of Privileges is a fearsome sight. To be wheeled into that room, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in the Chair and with very senior Members of Parliament sitting round, was the most frightening experience of my life.
What is the point of sending a journalist to the Committee? When asked his source, he would very properly refuse to give it. I say "very properly", because only yesterday the Government acknowledged by changing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that the police would not be able to chase journalists' sources. Therefore, is it sensible to try to put right an acknowledged mischief by sending the matter to 16 or so of our most senior right hon. and hon. Members? If I thought for one moment that those right hon. and hon. Members could do or say something, could produce a report that would make a recurrence less likely, or could do something useful to the journalist, I would vote for the motion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend has hit at least one nail on the head. Privy Councillors are among those who serve on the Committee of Privileges. I shall never forget until the day I die the way in which that Committee dealt with Alan Grimshaw. He had given evidence to a Select Committee about certain matters affecting the National Coal Board's purchasing powers. Lord Robens and all the rest rolled in, and Alan Grimshaw got the sack for giving that evidence against the NCB. We have never been able to obtain some of that evidence. I pleaded with the then Labour Government to send the matter to the Committee of Privileges, thinking that Alan Grimshaw would at least have half a chance. The matter went to the Committee of Privileges. The present Prime Minister sat on it, together with one or two other so-called "notables"—my hon. Friend knows the sort of people I refer to—and Alan Grimshaw was sold down the river.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is quite right, and he has pursued that case with commendable perseverance. The job of the Committee of Privileges is to discipline hon. Members and those who give false evidence to our Committees. Its task should not go beyond that, because it simply does not have a suitable remedy in its hands.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall try to be brief, but two important points must be made in favour of referring this issue to the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said that by referring the matter to the Committee we would be closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. However, unless we refer it to the Committee of Privileges, every horse will be able to escape and a draft report of any Committee will be nothing other than fair game for publication. If we do not stand firm on this point, people will know that the House will do nothing about it if they get hold of a draft report and reveal its contents.
If that were to happen, the work of Select Committees would become untenable. If we cannot circulate papers between hon. Members and use their staff in the belief that those papers will be confidential until they are published, Committee work will be totally undermined. Therefore, the motion seeks not only to rectify this situation, but to ensure that it is clear beyond peradventure that the practice will not continue. It does not matter if leaks occur in other places, wherever they may be. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West has said, we can control only our own procedures and that is what we should do.
The second important point refers again to the arguments made against referring the issue to the Committee. It is said that we shall be arrainging only the journalist. However, I hope that the Committee of Privileges will see every member of the Select Committee and every member of staff to try to discern w ho was responsible for being so lax with the documentation that it could get into the hands of journalists. I shall be charitable in saying "lax". If an answer can be found, it should be published. I accept that it is hon. Members who should be looked at. However, unless this matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges, that will not happen. In the interests of the House, this issue should be referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Michael English: It is traditional that this motion should be approved. I shall vote for it, but with all the qualms that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not believe that an Officer of the House leaked the information to anyone. Officers of the House do not frequently talk to journalists unless, as sometimes happens, they are asked to do so by Committees. However, I believe, strangely enough, that some hon. Member — not necessarily a member of the Select Committee — may have related Smoking Room gossip or something like that.
Two assumptions are held. The first is that a member of the Select Committee spoke directly to one of the journalists involved, or to all three of them. That is most unlikely. A journalist who 'will not reveal his source is sometimes concealing the fact that that source was merely another journalist. If somebody told me that a story appeared in two particular newspapers, the thought would spring into my mind that the two journalists were close friends who frequently pooled their information, and that since the newspapers were not competing against each other it would assist them both. That sort of thing is not unusual or uncommon. Thus, one of the sources may riot have been anyone other than another journalist.
Another possibility is that some journalist heard something. It is assumed automatically that the report was


leaked. However, just about every hon. Member is capable of giving a story to a journalist without showing him the text of the report. Many hon. Members can relate the precise words of a report's recommendations without having the report in front of them. The House does not consist entirely of Members of Parliament with slack memories. Indeed, I freely admit that I often have an inkling of the contents of Select Committee reports before they are published. That is due to the normal practice of one hon. Member talking to another. It is not my job to leak someone else's Committee report to the press, but there is no doubt that hon. Members, in the normal course of their business, talk to each other in the Smoking Room or elsewhere and say, "We are considering A" or, "We are considering B in our Committee. What is your view?". That is a perfectly normal and sensible practice. There is no doubt, therefore, that a leak does not necessarily come from a member of a Select Committee.
However, let us suppose for the moment that the leak came from a member of the Select Committee. It has been said that the Select Committee should look after its own house. That is true. I can think of a Chairman who rather skilfully organised the removal of an hon. Member from his Committee by making sure that someone offered the hon. Member something that the hon. Member preferred to being on the Select Committee and which was incompatible with his being on the Select Committee. Therefore, the hon. Member left the Select Committee and, by a mysterious coincidence, all leaks from that Committee ceased. The Chairman knew his Committee and took an appropriate course of action. That is one solution. Another, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) touched on, is to meet more often when considering a report.
There is almost a tradition that Select Committees can meet only once a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that not all Select Committees do, but there is such a tradition. If a Select Committee wants to get through a report without its being leaked, the simple solution is to get it out straight away. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has sometimes done that. We have gone on until after the House has risen, perhaps to midnight, to finish a report.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Why is my hon. Friend filibustering?

Mr. English: If my hon. Friend prefers to talk about silly feminists, that is fair enough.
If we refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, the only approach, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, is to tell the Committee to consider the matter properly and start by asking members of the Committee who they spoke to and trace the leak from there. We used to have a spate of privilege cases about leaks and we do not want them to recur. When I first became a Member of Parliament, every ex-journalist raised a story by one of his colleagues as a breach of privilege. I am sure that the Committee of Privileges should examine the matter, but from the right end. It should say that it is worried about the case and that the Select Committee may have leaked its own information. If it cannot prove that, it should not bother to report back to the House.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The rule of the House is clear. The publication of a Select Committee report before it has been authorised by the Committee is a breach of our privileges and, therefore, prima facie, there is a breach which is acknowledged by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. However, the House must judge whether to send a case to the Committee of Privileges. That is what we are discussing, not whether there has been a breach of privilege.
I strongly argue that we should not send this case to the Committee of Privileges. The issue is clear. A journalist, as with all other journalists, has been looking for something that will give him a story earlier than other journalists and before the report is published.

Mr. Skinner: Free market forces.

Mr. Lyon: That is inevitable. Just as journalists have argued strongly for the confidentiality of their records in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, we argue the same type of case for the confidentiality of our discussions. One day the House must consider seriously what the point of all this is.

Mr. Skinner: That is right—stop the lot.

Mr. Lyon: In Select Committee, we usually discuss evidence that we have taken in public. Frequently, the questions that we ask point to the nature of the subsequent report. Anyone who has listened to the questions can guess what the report will be. Even if they cannot, and what is leaked is the discussion of the report in Committee, where is the public danger in the report being discussed? I can think of only two possibilities.
In the four years during which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has discussed these issues, we once heard in private evidence from the head of Operation Countryman. It would have been wrong for any member of the Committee to have released the information that was subsequently sidelined by the chief constable of Surrey because such a release of information might have disadvantaged the public.
There have been other occasions when some of our reports have been leaked and the leakage has been partial in both senses of the word. It may have been leaked by a member of the Committee who was defeated over some aspect of the discussion and who wanted to make his stance clearer to the public than that of the Committee. That is unfortunate with regard to the trust between members of the Committee, but it does not do any harm to the public good and there is no reason why it should not happen. I cannot speak with the criminal convictions of some of my hon. Friends whose release of information has been divulged, as a result of which they have been called before the Committee of Privileges.
I should think that most hon. Members who serve on Select Committees will understand that I have occasionally broken that rule because I have discussed with colleagues or journalists what has been said in Select Committees. I cannot think that the public good has been damaged by that.
What can we say about this case? It is not as if the leak was partial. Someone got hold of the entire report and assessed it all. Moreover, it was printed in The Times, or whatever newspaper it was, in full. No one has been damaged and no part of the Committee feels that it has


been disadvantaged. The only disadvantage is that which the Government might feel—that the report is critical of them and they must face that criticism a little earlier than expected. That is not a serious justification for calling people before the Committee of Privileges and treating them as possible criminals. Nor is it a justification for the Committee calling every member of the Select Committee before it and asking, "Did you or did you not leak this report?". That would be absurd and make this place into a farce.
We should be careful about what we do with our power. We have exceptional powers and can do something about those people and about the press. Once, we sent the editor of a newspaper to prison for a little while. We have that power, but it would be absurd to use it unless it was absolutely clear that it was in the public interest to do so. We should serve no public interest by sending this case to the Committee of Privileges, and I hope that we shall not.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like to base my comments on what the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) said. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was here to listen to what he said.
If the House embarks on a grand inquisition, it will not serve the public interest one jot. Moreover, it would not be fair to do so. The hon. Member for Stroud said that he had to pick on The Times because he happened to read it but that the story had appeared in several other newspapers. Because the hon. Gentleman did not read The Scotsman, for example, and does not, the journalist who wrote the report for The Scotsman will avoid the grand inquisition upon which the hon. Gentleman proposes to embark.
We are not discussing an exaggerated, malicious or false report. On the contrary, we are dealing with an apparently accurate report, in a serious journal, written by a serious journalist. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, no one has been injured. Indeed, the public have been enlightened. The only anxiety is the fluttering among members of the Select Committee about who provided the information. That is a slender basis on which to start the apparatus of the grand inquisition of the Committee of Privileges.
If the House is really concerned about the standards of conduct of the press in matters of public interest and it passes this resolution, it will show two different standards. A report has been published that is rather critical of the Government, and that has caused members of the Select Committee to look askance at each other, but no one has been injured. All that has been injured is the pride of some Committee members.
What happened when the Press Council produced a searing report on the conduct of the press in the Sutcliffe case, the chequebook journalism, and the deception by editors and reporters? That harmed the general public and individual members of it who were deeply involved in the tragedies, but the House and the Government did not allocate an iota of time to discuss that report. No Select Committee was established to examine the conduct of the press in a matter of major public importance that was the focus of attention in the entire country.
Here we have a report that has been leaked prematurely and we are discussing a motion to send it to the Select Committee of Privileges. It is not worth it. We must make a judgment on the merits of the case, and on the merits

advanced by the hon. Member for Stroud there is no point in putting this to the Committee for an inquisition into a serious article in a serious journal.
As my hon. Friends have said, the journalist will not reveal his source, so the inquisition will turn its attention to members of the Committee, Officers of the House and even the printers of the report. It would be unfair to exclude them. However, according to the motion, the inquisition will not include other journalists who published the scoop earlier in any case. It is complete nonsense for us to spend time on this matter, and I hope that the motion will be defeated.
I hope—the hopes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) are rather higher than mine —that this case will be treated on its merits. I suspect that the voting will be on a political basis, because some of the anxiety about this report is caused by the fact that it criticised the Government and undermined their long-held position on the Falklands. We shall examine the voting figures with interest.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) to withdraw the motion without the House voting upon it? I am one of the old lags who have been before the Privileges Committee, and I can confirm what my hon. Friends have said. Very little evidence is taken in Hansard form. Nothing is published at the end of the inquiry. The journalist will not reveal his source of information, and the report will not come back to the House for debate.
Perhaps the House recalls the case in 1963 with Mr. Harold Macmillan, when a journalist who was involved in the Vassall inquiry eventually went to prison, which alienated the whole of Fleet street from the Conservative party just before the 1964 election — [Interruption.] Conservative Members would be well advised to consider the intense interest of all those gentleman in the Press Gallery who are waiting to pounce. I advise the hon. Member for Stroud to withdraw the motion if it is possible to do so.

Mr. John Silkin: I should like to make clear my position as shadow Leader of the House. There have been some misconceptions in this debate. The issue is not whether we should persecute press men, and the Committee of Privileges does not exist simply to discipline Members of Parliament. The House is the arbiter of discipline— it always was and I hope that it always will be—but for convenience it appointed a Privileges Committee. As a member of that Committee, I can understand those who regard its members as not being entirely suitable, but it is a Committee of the House——

Mr. Skinner: Parliamentary snobs.

Mr. Silkin: That may be so, but the House has the power to appoint its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who is a distinguished member of that Committee, is one of the least snobbish people I know.
The question is whether the House should concern itself with this matter. What do we mean by "privilege"? It is the right of Parliament to conduct its operations without fear or favour, and that is why such a Committee has


always been part of our procedure. Of course it must change from time to time because it becomes stupid, pompous or silly. Times change, but the House has the power to change those rules. That is why we have the Procedure Committee and debates and we can reconsider the position each year. I hope that we shall do so from time to time.
Perhaps my hon. Friends are right to say that it is time for the House to reconsider the Committee, but the present position is clear. One minute before the report appeared in the press, both the givers and the takers of information were perfectly aware of our procedure. They knew that it would be a breach of privilege and that it was likely to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: They might also have been aware of what happened on an almost identical previous occasion when a leaked Select Committee draft report was published in The Economist and was referred to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee tried hard to find out who had leaked the report, and predictably failed, and then recommended that the offending journalist should be disbarred from this building for six months. That recommendation was rejected by the House. Perhaps the journalist in this case was conscious of that precedent and believed that he had nothing to fear.

Mr. Silkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that I may drive home in complete safety at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone is proof not that there should not be a 30 mph limit, but that I believe that I can get away with it. This has nothing to do with whether we should institute our own procedures.
There is no alternative in this matter, and the Committee of parliamentary snobs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and the Leader of the House, who is leaning forward anxiously as though he wishes to be included, should be credited with some common sense. If we do not have that common sense, if and when we report to the House, I have no doubt that it will exercise the common sense that is necessary in this case.
For those reasons, because of precedent and because whoever did it knew perfectly well that this was likely to happen, I recommend that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Perhaps the House will think it appropriate that the debate should not be concluded without the last rites from me, although I do not wish to make a long speech, to reply to the debate or to give guidance on how the House should vote. However, we must realise, as has been argued frequently, that the question is whether the Committee of Privileges should have the opportunity to comment upon an undoubtedly serious allegation, or whether, in the judgment of experience, it is believed that that Committee is neither appropriate nor competent to consider such matters. I note with great interest that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) believes that the matter should go to the Committee, but he makes that judgment in the face of

several hon. Members who might claim that their experience before the Committee entitles them to a different view.
The other point that I am sure the House will wish to weigh is that we are concerned about the developing authority of Select Committees. If the Chairman of a Select Committee believes that the work of his Committee is impeded by what has happened and wishes the matter to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, the House might believe it appropriate to the developing status of Select Committees that at least sympathetic consideration be given to that view.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) to withdraw the motion if he so wished?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) has not said that he wishes to do so.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 48.

Division No. 127]
[5.20 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Forrester, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Ginsburg, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gorst, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gow, Ian


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Graham, Ted


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, Sir Anthony


Best, Keith
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Blackburn, John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Heddle, John


Bowden, Andrew
Hicks, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brinton, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hooson, Tom


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howells, Geraint


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
John, Brynmor


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawrence, Ivan


Crouch, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Macfarlane, Neil


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


English, Michael
Major, John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Marlow, Antony


Field, Frank
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)






Monro, Sir Hector
Stainton, Keith


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stradling Thomas, J.


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Osborn, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Viggers, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Waddington, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Roper, John
Ward, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watkins, David


Rossi, Hugh
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Sandelson, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.



Smith, Sir Dudley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Speed, Keith
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.


Speller, Tony



NOES


Ashton, Joe
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bidwell, Sydney
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Morton, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
O'Neill, Martin


Carmichael, Neil
Parker, John


Cook, Robin F.
Race, Reg


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Richardson, Jo


Dalyell, Tam
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dobson, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Dubs, Alfred
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Dunnett, Jack
Short, Mrs Renée


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Silverman, Julius


Fitt, Gerard
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Stallard, A. W.


Haynes, Frank
Stoddart, David


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Tilley, John


Home Robertson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Hoyle, Douglas
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Kinnock, Neil



Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tellers for the Noes:


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McWilliam, John
Mr. Christopher Price.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Conduct of Members (Threats)

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I beg to move,
That this House reaffirms that to attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is a serious contempt of the House.
The purpose of my motion is to call attention to threats reported to have been uttered by Miss Ruth Hall at a meeting held at the House in connection with the Marital Rape Bill. It is not my intention today to make value judgments on the advantages or disadvantages of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) or that my complaint should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
According to a report by the distinguished chief political correspondent to the Press Association, Mr. Chris Moncrieff, on the morning of Thursday 14 April Miss Hall, a founder member of WAR — Women Against Rape—gave a warning at a press conference held in the House to mark the publication of the Marital Rape Bill.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: She is not even married.

Mr. Proctor: She is reported to have said:
It takes only the objection of one Member to block a Bill. We will be taking note of any Members of Parliament who block it and we will make sure they live to regret it.
When questioned, she apparently did not elaborate, saying only that it would depend on circumstances such as who the Member of Parliament was and what his weak points were.
So far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, since this matter was raised with you, Miss Hall has not sought to deny these statements or to apologise for them. Indeed, she is reported as saying:
We find it rather disturbing that these Members of Parliament seem to be more concerned about their privileges than the safety of women.
It is not our sensitivities which are of concern, but the clear threat to the conduct of our work in this place. We should not have to carry out our duties under threats of this nature. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to conduct a running commentary. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) must be allowed to make out his case to the House.

Mr. Proctor: On balance, I think the House would be wise not to take the gravest view of this matter. Miss Hall may not have realised the import of what she was saying. Therefore, I have not moved that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. However, I do not believe that we can allow such threats to pass unnoticed or unchallenged. By supporting the motion, I believe that we might remind ourselves and others outside that to threaten or to attempt to influence Members in their conduct is a serious contempt of the House and contrary to our parliamentary democracy, which we all cherish.

Mr. John Tilley: I rise to oppose the motion because I was the only Member present when the alleged breach of privilege took place. I consider that I am under attack from the motion—certainly the first part of it—because I was responsible for booking the


room and for calling the press conference, which I was chairing, at which the words in question were uttered. If a breach of privilege were to be proved, I would have to take some of the blame for conniving at or, at the very least, colluding in that breach. Therefore, it is a serious matter, and I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House in defending myself and Ruth Hall and asking the House to reject the motion.
I do not question the fact that Ruth Hall said that her organisation — Women Against Rape — would try to ensure that Members who blocked the Marital Rape Bill would "live to regret it." I am not questioning the integrity or, indeed, the shorthand skill of Mr. Chris Moncrieff of the Press Association whose report led to the complaint by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), but those remarks are not even technically a contempt of the House.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, "Erskine May", in page 150, lists examples of contempt which come under attempted intimidation of Members. All the examples relate to the publication of letters or posters or the summoning of a Member to a trade union meeting. An off-the-cuff remark of the type we are discussing now is not covered by those rules.
There was no threat of a specific nature in Ruth Hall's remarks. An article in the Daily Mail—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept what the Daily Mail says—said:
Miss Hall declined to elaborate.
She did not say whether she intended merely to induce a sense of remorse among Members to encourage people to vote against them, which is allowable or some form of physical assault. Clearly, the private fantasies of the hon. Member for Basildon have supplied his imagination with some terrible retribution that he may suffer, but that is his problem, not Ruth Hall's.
Technically, we have a non-existent threat, not addressed to a specific Member or Members. On the face of it, this appears to be a frivolous complaint, lodged perhaps to gain a little publicity, but there are wider and, I believe, more sinister implications in the motion. It appears to be part of a growing trend—we have seen more of it this afternoon—to use, or rather to abuse, our privileges to stifle the right of free speech of those who sent us here. To raise the issue of contempt over such a vague remark is not to protect the independence of the House or Members, but to bring the procedures of the House into contempt in the eyes of the public.
It is no coincidence that the Marital Rape Bill is a matter of great controversy. Many women are deeply disturbed about the law of rape and the way it is administered. They have for a long time claimed that their views did not receive a fair hearing in this male-dominated House. Their fears will be confirmed if the House votes today to pursue this vindictive attack on a woman who was invited by me to use the proper democratic channels to give her views on an issue that is currently before the House.
We must not allow the House even to appear to be using its powers to suppress views that it finds uncomfortable or disturbing. I believe that what leads to demonstrations in the Strangers Gallery is when women who have a valid case find that they are hindered in using the normal

democratic channels of free speech and the House, the fountainhead of so much empty rhetoric, uses its full panoply of powers to crush one outspoken woman.
I hope that hon. Members have noticed how this motion differs from the previous one. That asked for a possible breach of privilege to be examined and investigated by the Committee of Privileges so that a considered judgment could be formed. The hon. Member for Basildon does not call for any such procedure. In fact, he has used a form of words that has not appeared in a privilege motion, I am told, for more than 30 years. He does not ask for the matter to be sent to the Committee of Privileges. He makes an unfounded and serious allegation against Ruth Hall and me and then merely affirms in the second half of the motion the known views of the House.
Ruth Hall would have no chance to defend herself against the allegation and I have only the limited opportunity of this debate. The hon. Member for Basildon is seeking to dodge the usual procedure of reference to the Committee of Privileges because he knows that it would toss it out as a frivolous, malicious and unfounded smear. As you said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the House cannot proceed on mere suspicion. It must have evidence, and it has had none. I suggest that the Committee on Procedure should consider whether such motions should be allowed in future.
I must refer to the irony of the claim of intimidation that is being made by the hon. Member for Basildon. In his public utterances recently he has repeatedly intimidated my black constituents——

Mr. Tony Marlow: Sit down.

Mr. Tilley: —and all black Britons by threatening them with repatriation. Therefore, we have an extra reason for electing black British Members to this House. Then every racist remark of the hon. Gentleman will be a breach of parliamentary privilege, and the House will make sure he lives to regret it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We are getting very silly now. I cannot conceive how this matter can be even prima facie a breach of privilege. What the lady is supposed to have said is capable of being hyperbole, of indicating that at some stage in future hon. Members may feel sorry that they voted against the Bill, or of indicating that some kind of pressure, which would be improper, would be put on them at a subsequent date. Until there is improper pressure, there cannot conceivably be a breach of privilege, because the words are not capable of indicating such a breach. If we were to take the motion seriously, we should really be making a farce of ourselves. Therefore, I hope that the House will throw it out.
I say that with complete conviction because when my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) introduced the Bill nobody voted against it, though one hon. Member from the Back Benches shouted out that it was rubbish; and that I am afraid was me. I oppose the Bill. I hope that the lady will not look for my weakest parts to abuse me. I suggest that the issue has not been properly thought through in relation to the Bill and, even less, the motion.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: We should be congratulating rather than abusing the lady in question in


view of the important point she made about what happens on a Friday afternoon when the Front Bench ventriloquists from the Government Whips' Office shout "Object" to everything, usually with their hands in front of their mouths so that nobody knows where the cry has come from. Anybody who really wants to put pressure on such hon. Members cannot discover who shouted "Object" because the names are not recorded in Hansard.
What the lady said was only a form of lobbying. It may have been over-enthusiastic lobbying to say, "If somebody shouts 'Object' to the Bill, we will see that they live to regret it." However, as has been said, we have lived to regret many decisions that we have taken in this House, not because of threats or promises from our wives, but because we stand on our own feet.
Women are outnumbered in this place by perhaps 30 to one. Surely they should be allowed to make threatening noises outside about what they would do if we do not support a Bill designed to help women. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) should not be so sensitive. He does not need any support, being 6ft 2in and built like a storm trooper. He complains because a woman has offered a threat to him. It is ludicrous. The motion should be rejected.

Miss Jo Richardson: I agree with my hon. Friends that this is a ludicrous charge to make. I had determined — as with other private Members' Bills to which I object—to be sure to be here to see who would object to the Bill when it came to be reported on a Friday afternoon, and I might have been accused of using the same words as Miss Hall.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) seems to be suggesting that Ruth Hall is liable to come after him with an axe or a knife. That is ridiculous. There must have been many occasions when most hon. Members have said, "You will live to regret that." I recall during the last general election meeting people who had decided to vote Conservative. I told them, "You will live to regret it." Goodness me, several have since told me that they have.
We regret all sorts of things, and "You will live to regret it" is a common phrase to use. Many people have said to me in personal and political terms, regarding something I have done that they have not liked, that I would live to regret whatever it might have been. On the subject of capital punishment, for example, constituents and others have said that I would live to regret it if I did not support its return. Also, on the question of abortion I have been subjected to some particularly nasty threats, but I have not taken them seriously in the sense that they might result in a hostile action.
In my view, Miss Hall and her colleagues are simply striking a blow for women's freedom in society. For that I applaud them. I hope that the House will throw out this ludicrous and stupid charge.

Mr. Michael English: The only serious point here is one which I hope you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House will look at. This procedure is relatively new. We have before us an extraordinary motion which, by its wording, is quite unexceptional. It is tied, however, to a speech about an issue to which it does not in itself relate. I hope therefore that in future, when you are giving permission for these debates to take

place, Mr. Speaker, you will endeavour to use the power you have to make sure that the motion relates to the subject raised.
It places the House in a dilemma. It is possible that nearly all of us regard this particular matter as not very serious. It is equally possible that nearly all of us regard the actual wording on the Order Paper as a truism which should be voted through. Now we are in the dilemma, however, that if we vote for it—

Miss Richardson: We may live to regret it?

Mr. English: Perhaps, but not for the reason in relation to which it was said by the lady in question, who was either silly or seeking publicity.

Mr. Frank Dobson: That would not disqualify her from being an hon. Member.

Mr. English: It would not disqualify her from being a member of the human race or even of the House of Commons. It is important that in future we should not be presented with this dilemma. The motion should always relate to the particular event complained of.

Mr. John Silkin: This motion can be differentiated entirely from the first one, because the House had specifically said that there would be a breach of privilege if a report or document of a Select Commit tee were circulated outside that Committee. That is not the case here. Indeed, looking at the words of this motion, one cannot help but recall that in page 373 of "Erskine May" there is a prohibition against what are called frivolous motions—motions that are brought before the House in a spirit of mockery. When I first read this, I thought that it must be such a frivolous motion. I realised then that it could not be, because, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, if any motion is put on the Order Paper, it ceases to be frivolous under our rules, although for every other reason it is.
The first two lines of the motion remind one of what is not assault in law. If ore says to another person, "I would kill you if it were not assize time" it is not an assault because it is not something that is likely to threaten the person. If one says, "I will do something, I do not know what it is for the moment, but there may be circumstances in which I might or might not," I cannot see how that can be a threat.
I regard the motion as a complete waste of the time of the House. I hope that every hon. Member will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I rise with interest not merely in the debate but in the business that is to follow in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I believe that it would not be an unwise judgment of the House if it were to decide that we should proceed as decently and speedily as possible.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has commented upon the motion. I believe that the debate has shown that we often have parallel debates — debates which are conducted by voice and by votes.
The motion
That this House reaffirms that to attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is a serious contempt of the House,


is beyond question. However, any vote on that motion could be subject to serious misunderstanding because of the statements that have been made.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for giving me and other hon. Members an opportunity of affirming something that lies at the heart of our parliamentary conduct. However, running parallel with that has been what I call the debate of the voices, and those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the past half hour will judge the debate of the voices. My hon. Friend is a tough fighter in these matters. He will not have been intimidated by the speeches expressing views contrary to his. Doubtless, Opposition Members who have been advancing their views will continue their debate of the voices.
We have had our consideration of this matter. I hope that we can now proceed without a vote.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

PARTNERSHIPS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND

`For the purposes of this Act and the 1949 Act, occupation of agricultural land by a Scottish partnership shall, notwithstanding section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1890, be treated as occupation by each of the partners.'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
By proposing new clause 1 the Opposition are seeking to take account of an anomaly which was drawn to the attention of the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading and which we pursued in Committee. During our consideration of the Bill in Committee the problem of partnerships in the occupation of agricultural land emerged. It is a problem that has become increasingly common in recent years, because while the level of owner occupation of land has remained constant, the level of tenanted land has fallen by about 5 per cent. during the past 10 years.
There has been an increase in the non-traditional holdings of land. We wish to draw the attention of the House to these non-traditional holdings of land. We should like to ensure that the rights enjoyed by what can only be called "junior partners" in these agricultural partnerships are protected. It has become apparent that when holdings and leases become available they do so in many instances as partnerships, where a large estate is prepared to introduce into partnership a young farmer who is willing to forgo many of the traditional rights of a tenant for the opportunity of participating in his first farm.
We believe that the clause will go some way to protect the rights of the junior partner. We feel that while the arguments advanced in the Northfield report are not without substance they would perhaps result in the ending of partnerships if we were to seek to outlaw them under the Bill. Nevertheless, we feel that it is important that the individuals who have entered into these agreements, primarily because of the absence of any other means of entering farming, should not be disadvantaged as against the rest of the tenants wanting to participate in Scottish agriculture who have been able to obtain, by whatever means, access to land through leases.
We hope that the Minister, having had some time to reflect on the matter, will find this improved clause acceptable and will take account of what could well become an increasing problem in Scottish agriculture—the young man or woman who wishes to participate in farming but does not have the resources to buy or does not have access to a holding and who is therefore virtually forced into accepting the offer of a holding from a large estate on what can often be regarded as extremely unfair terms. Therefore, in the interests of equity, we wish the


Government to accept the new clause in its new and improved form. We think that it will go some way towards meeting the objections that the Government raised in Committee.
We do not regard this problem of partnerships in quite the sanguine way that Northfield—which has been our bible as we have moved through the Committee—does. We think that it is a problem that has to be considered, if for no other reason than that it is most unlikely that we shall return to this subject in the House in the foreseeable future, even after the return of a Labour Government. It is a problem which we must solve now. We have to accept the changing conditions in agriculture, and one of the trends which has developed and which we believe will increase is the use of agricultural partnerships, especially for younger people entering farming. We feel that their rights should be protected and we believe that the new clause will go some way towards providing the sort of protection which they expect.

Sir Hector Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the new clause does relative to the present situation, so that we can have a debate on it?

Mr. O'Neill: I was endeavouring to be as brief as possible. We rehearsed the argument, but it may have been on one of the occasions when the hon. Member was not in the Standing Committee.
We wish the partners in an agricultural partnership to have a right of tenure and to the kind of protection under the leases which partners in other tenancies enjoy. This is a kind of quasi-tenancy because of the uneven balance between the two parties in the partnership, where one of them is in effect the landowner and the other becomes a sort of partial owner, with very few other rights. We seek to establish the rights of the tenant in the way that I have suggested.

Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for elucidating what the new clause, which is really an amendment, is about because it shows straight away that if it were approved a large proportion of this Bill would become pointless. We should be back to square one relative to providing new tenancies, because obviously partnerships would become very much less popular if the new clause were accepted.
I think that we all realise, from the lengthy deliberations that we have had on the Bill, that there has been a very steady drop, now becoming a dramatic drop, in the number of farms available to let. This, of course, has been largely due to changes in capital taxation and the impossibility of landowners' gaining possession of their own farms, often when their need is particularly great. It is this issue of the possession of farms that is crucial to the Bill, and particularly to the new clause.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) has highlighted the fact that he feels that the partnership idea is unfair to the partner who is going to work and run the farm. I think that he is wrong in that assumption, both from my own point of view and from the number of partnerships that have been set up in Scotland. The reports that I have had on them are particularly favourable. This arrangement has given an opportunity for many young and able farmers to obtain the tenancy of a farm through the partnership system without

the use of the very large capital sum which is almost inevitable now whether one is buying a farm or becoming a tenant.
The implied criticism of the partnership scheme needs to be answered, because in effect the estate sets up the partner in business and provides perhaps a quarter of the capital required— which may be £20,000 or £30,000, and I have even heard of as much as £60,000. The farmer, with all that assistance and help, is able to run the farm as a working partner.
Profit sharing is, of course, on an agreed basis and, from what I have heard, seems to be reasonably equitable. The farmer has the first share of the profits up to, say, £4,000 or £5,000. Thereafter profit is on the basis of equal shares. There is a third tranche, which is again on a percentage of the gross sales. I emphasise that the estate normally gets nothing until the partner has had his first share of the profits. If there is a loss, it is shared equally.
In the estate company that I am talking about, Buccleuch Estates — a very able company running largely in my constituency and, of course, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)—the farming partner is there for five years and thereafter on an annual basis.
It has to be accepted that a person goes into a partnership with two considerations in mind. First, it is entirely voluntary, and, secondly, he goes into the partnership on a basis of trust—trust that if he maintains good husbandry and the farm is running well there is no likelihood of the estate's wishing to close the partnership after the five years. And it will, of course, be continued on an annual basis. Trust and confidence between the estate and the partner are vital, and no good estate would ever want to regain possession if the farm was being well looked after by an able partner.
In Buccleuch Estates, I understand there are about 24 partnerships, so obviously this scheme is working satisfactorily. No partner has come to me and said that the arrangements made between the estates and himself are unfair. This has been going on for about seven years or more and has enabled many able young men to get into farming.

Mr. O'Neill: From his detailed knowledge of the Buccleuch Estates, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many tenancies have been withdrawn from the market to be reformed in the shape of partnerships?

Sir Hector Monro: When a farm comes up to be considered for a partnership the previous tenant will have left the farm, of course. It must be vacant possession, because it is impossible to turn out an existing tenant in order to set up a new tenancy, so a new situation is started with a partnership.
I think that it is wrong for Opposition Members, whether in Committee or in the short speech by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire today, to knock the idea of partnerships, because these have brought new men into farming and this is as likely to be as effective as the provisions in the Bill in making more tenancies available, which is what the Scottish landowners and the National Farmers Union of Scotland want to happen. To attack one of the arrangements that can bring new men into farming seems to me to be very unsatisfactory and most undesirable.
We want to maintain the structure of tenanted farms. There is an opportunity, through the partnership scheme,


to do just that. After all, there will be little desire on the part of the estate to regain possession unless it can see some of the worst things on the horizon occurring, such as land nationalisation by the Labour party or a form of capital taxation, which might make it absolutely essential to regain possession.
We have to keep in mind all the time in the farming structure of Scotland the value of estates to farming and the rural economy. The farming companies and the big estates provide foresters, tradesmen, builders, stonemasons, drainers and so on with an immense amount of highly expert management, which is available to the tenants or partners. Within partnerships in the big estates there are other benefits, such as bulk buying of feeding stuffs and fertilisers. Another aspect that people tend to forget is the opportunities in large estates for access to the public, which is now becoming more important as people enjoy recreation in the countryside.
The key thing is that partnerships must be ones of mutual trust between the estate company and the farming partner. I see no reason why we should try to devalue that scheme by the new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who put the case so admirably for the scheme that was agreed by the Scottish landowners and the National Farmers Union of Scotland, will reject the new clause, because it will not in any way help to bring more people into farming.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for advancing the difficult case on behalf of landlords who use this ploy. Evidently, he has been well briefed by the factor's office in the Buccleuch Estates, which is in his constituency. I think that the hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), he admitted that in future new lets on the Buccleuch Estates, as in so many others, would not be carried out under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Bill that we are discussing. On the contrary, the farms would be let in the form of a partnership, which effectively avoids the protection of tenants.

Sir Hector Monro: I would much rather that the hon. Gentleman did not put words into my mouth. All I said was that partnerships could not begin until there was vacant possession. I did not say that every farm that had vacant possession would become a partnership.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. If he reads his speech in Hansard, he will be able to check what he said. I have the impression that what is happening on the Buccleuch Estates, as on other estates, is that when there are new lets they are not under the terms of the tenancies under the agricultural holdings legislation, but in the form of partnerships.
The Bill has been dressed up as a provision that will re-establish the tenanted sector. As the hon. Member for Dumfries said, it is the product of negotiations behind closed doors between the Scottish Landowners Federation and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. The Minister defended the package through thick and thin in Committee. Evidently, it will be difficult for anyone to

insert constructive amendments into the package, which is a pity, as there is a wider interest in land tenure in rural Scotland than the interests of those in the Scottish Landowners Federation and the NFU of Scotland.
6.15 pm
If the new clause is not accepted, the Bill will be fairly superfluous. As has already emerged from our discussions, landlords and their agents have well and truly discovered and developed a device of bogus partnerships whereby farms are let, not to tenants, but to an entity, which is a partnership between the landlord and the tenant. It has been described by many people in Scotland as a system that is little better than share cropping. It effectively drives a flock of sheep through all the provisions of the agricultural holdings legislation, which is supposed to protect tenants' security and control their rents.
The Minister took it upon himself in Committee to advise prospective tenants not to enter into those medieval arrangements, which leave tenants with rights that are little better than those of feudal serfs. However, the fact is that prospective tenants have no choice. When a farm is available to let, they find that it is available to let only to a partnership. As there are far more prospective tenants in Scotland than farms available to let, prospective tenants cannot pick and choose, but take what the landlord is prepared to offer. In all too many cases, the partnership is bogus.
In Committee I cited instances of those arrangements. As the hon. Member for Dumfries has explained, when Scotland's biggest landowner, the Duke of Buccleuch, lets farms nowadays, he does so on the basis of one of those partnerships. I have a copy of the particulars of let, to which I referred in Committee. It lists all the normal particulars of farms available to let. The catch-all clause, headed "Partnership", states:
The successful applicant will, prior to the date of entry, enter into a Participating Partnership with a Buccleuch Estates Limited Subsidiary Company to take a lease of the farm.
The Partnership would be on the usual Estate form of Participating Partnership Agreement, a pro forma copy of which may be seen at the Estate Office by intending applicants.
Whether prospective tenants like it or not, unless we accept the new clause, they will be stuck with those partnerships, without protection, rather than the tenancies that we would like to see in rural areas of Scotland.
Whatever the hon. Member for Dumfries and other supporters of the Duke of Buccleuch might say, I can say with confidence, having met tenant farmers, secretaries of NFU branches and other people all over Scotland, that the system is bitterly resented by tenant farmers in Scotland. It is deliberately and blatantly designed to circumvent the wishes of Parliament about the status of Scottish farming tenants. I suppose that it would have been too much to expect the Government to address themselves to this problem, because to do so would be to dispute the interests of Tory supporters in the Scottish Landowners Federation. It is too much to hope that the Minister or his noble Friend the Minister of State would do anything as enlightened as that.
I fear that the failure to take this problem on board could render the Bill, which has been heralded as the new dawn for Scottish tenant farmers, a giant flop. It may be a long time before the House has another opportunity to discuss the matter. I support the new clause. I hope and believe


that before long a Scottish Parliament will be able to frame completely new legislation covering the whole land tenure system in rural Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): In Committee we had a lengthy discussion on farming partnerships, and we have by and large ploughed the same field today. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has ploughed the field just as badly as he did in Committee. I only hope that his rolling acres on the border are not ploughed half as badly as he has treated this subject both here and upstairs.
I accept that there is a considerable range of partnership arrangements and that some might not be as satisfactory for the working partner as others, but I do not accept that all those who enter farming by means of a farming partnership do so on impossible conditions imposed by the kind of ruthless landowners that seem to bedevil the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian.
The Northfield committee of inquiry into the acquisition and occupancy of agricultural land, which reported in 1979, looked into the question of farming partnerships. It found that in many cases partnerships worked well in practice and concluded that legislation to regulate partnerships was not justified. The Government share Northfield's view and are opposed in principle to legislate to end farming partnerships.
The new clause would effectively end partnerships and almost certainly encourage landowners to take the land into their own hands or to find other ways of having quasi tenancies, as Northfield suggested might be the case. The new clause would not, therefore, lead to any increase in the let sector and would effectively eliminate the opportunity that exists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out, for people to enter farming under a partnership agreement.
As we have had a brief debate here and a much longer debate in Committee, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the motion.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

VARIATION OF RENT

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
`and
(iii) at the end there shall be added the words "and any factor arising from a scarcity of subjects available to let".'.

Mr. O'Neill: One of the recurring themes in Committee was the nature of the deal that was struck between the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. It was assumed that the deal was to be a compromise. There was to be a delicate balance of interests. The landowners were to get so much and the National Farmers Union, in its dual role as a representative of tenants and landowners, would get so much. One of the points in favour of young people wishing to enter farming or anyone seeking a new tenancy was to

be the abolition of key money. Our understanding is that there is still doubt as to whether new tenants will be adequately protected.
We tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in an attempt to make clear that
any factor arising from a scarcity of subjects available to let
would not lead to an increase in the arbitrated rent which would take account of the willingness of individuals to pay over and above the going rate. Initially we were led to believe that key money would be outlawed. We have subsequently been informed, having had an opportunity to speak to the National Farmers Union, that protection would not be afforded by the Bill, as drafted, and that there was still a need for action.
I accept that the amendment may be imperfect and that we may not have time today to develop the arguments. If the Minister tells me that he is prepared to consider the matter and that it can be dealt with in another place to the satisfaction of all concerned, we shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. We are anxious to get an assurance from the Minister that he will be able to meet the anxieties expressed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland in respect of key money. If he agrees that amendment is necessary—we accept that it may not be possible for him to indicate precisely the nature of the amendment—we would be prepared to take it on trust. I await the outcome of the Government's thinking.

Mr. Home Robertson: We are paying the price for the haste with which the Bill has passed through Parliament so far. We were informed by breathless representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, after clause 2 had been passed in Committee, that the inclusion of the little word "normally" in clause 2(a)(i) would mean that a coach and horses could be driven through the intention to take the consideration of a premium as a result of a scarcity of farms to let out of the calculation of rents assessed for other farmers in the neighbourhood. We tabled the amendments to ensure that the point would be debated again.
I was advised yesterday afternoon by Mr. Jock Hunter of the National Farmers Union that he had had further discussions with the Minister, following consultations that the union had had with its legal advisers and others, that seemed to bear out the union's interpretation that the Bill, as drafted, could mean that the premium created by the scarcity of farms to let could remain in the calculation. The provision on key money was the one good thing that led the Opposition not to oppose the Bill in principle. Obviously we would be worried if this intention is defeated because of the curious drafting of the Bill. We understand that the Minister has given an assurance to the National Farmers Union. I invite him to give a similar assurance to the House that, if necessary, appropriate amendments will be brought forward in another place.

Mr. John MacKay: The intention of the Bill is certainly to provide that the arbiter must look to factors other than evidence of open market rents for comparable subjects in the surrounding area where he is of the view that such evidence as there is is insufficient or unreliable. It was envisaged that the phrase
insufficient, or not sufficiently reliable
would encompass situations in which there was a scarcity of subjects to let.
While that is the intention, the Government acknowledge that it is important to ensure that the detailed


wording of the new statutory formula for determining rent on rent reviews by arbitration is the correct one, since this issue will affect the whole let sector in Scotland for a long time to come. We do not consider that the wording of the amendments is appropriate but, in the light of the discussion in the House today, and the representations we have had from the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation, we propose to re-examine the wording in detail. If, in the light of that reexamination, we consider that clarification of our intention in the Bill is required, we shall arrange for the necessary amendment to be made in another place. Having given that assurance, I hope that we can pass on to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Before the Minister sits down, could he give us a tiny glimpse of what it is about the innocent word "normally" that is not normal in this context?

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to have a long discussion. There is more involved than the innocent word "normally". There has to be a definition of when things are normal and what scarcity means. That is the complicated issue to which the draftsman will have to turn his mind to ensure that the Bill does what we, the Labour Opposition, other parties in the House and the two parties to the agreement outside the House intended—that the arbiter should be able to consider other factors than simply open market rents.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a constituent who is more than a little interested in the matter. He has been lobbying us fairly hard on the subject. I assure him that we have it very much in hand. We hope, if necessary, to put forward amending words in Committee in another place.

Mr. O'Neill: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
'(iv) the current economic conditions in the relevant sector of agriculture.";'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in
clause 1, page 2, line 25, at end add 'in the surrounding area'.

Mr. MacKay: Clause 2 provides:
Where the arbiter is of the view that such evidence as there is of rents in the open market for comparable subjects in the surrounding areas is insufficient, or not sufficiently reliable, to enable him to determine … the rent
he can take other factors into account. It was suggested in Committee that that definition was too wide, as agriculture in Scotland encompasses a wide range of sectors. I undertook to consider the matter again and I now propose amendment No. 4, which provides that the criteria shall apply to the sector of agriculture in which the review holding is engaged.
The Opposition's amendment No. 5 would alter the criteria to consideration of economic conditions in agriculture as a whole as they applied to the area surrounding the holding. The economic conditions factor is intended to enable an arbiter, having examined all the

available comparisons, to adjust the rent upwards or downwards to take into account my proposed new criterion of the general economic conditions applying in the particular sector of agriculture in which the holding is engaged. The economic conditions factor will be available as an instrument of fine tuning. Although reliable information about the general economic conditions in Scottish agriculture as a whole will be readily available, information limited to a small geographical area is unlikely to be available.
In the circumstances, and in the light of the debate in Committee, I commend amendment No. 4 to the House. I think that it will meet with approval and I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment No. 5.

Mr. O'Neill: We tried in Committee to sharpen up the criteria. We suggested this change and the Minister, with characteristic caution, decided to consult his boss in another place before agreeing to it. Nevertheless, we are thankful for small mercies.
I was interested to hear the language that the Minister used in proposing the amendment. The last thing that I expected from a monetarist Government was any sign of appreciation for things like fine tuning which used always to be associated with Keynesian economics. I am grateful to the Minister, as the amendment goes some way to meeting our criticisms.
On the point about surrounding areas, I realise that in the context of the new criterion this would be restrictive. When we tabled our amendment, we were not sure what the future position would be. Subject to the discussion, I shall probably be happy not to press amendment No. 5.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am delighted that the Government have agreed to introduce amendment No. 4.
In rejecting amendment No. 5, the Minister said that the Government did not have information about the agricultural conditions in different areas of Scotland. That is an extraordinary statement. The information must be available not only through the offices of his Department but through the returns to the college of agriculture and the figures made available for the purpose of the census. I do not think that he needs to rest his case on such grounds. Perhaps he will correct any misapprehension that his remarks may have caused.

Mr. Home Robertson: I thank the Minister for introducing this constructive Government amendment. I may even claim some credit for it as I moved an amendment on this in Committee. I pointed out that the requirement to consider
current general economic conditions in agriculture
in assessing rents could be harsh on tenants in sectors of the industry that are currently having a bad time. At that time, a large group of pig farmers had come down from Scotland to see us and to tell us of the desperate state of the pig industry in Scotland. It would certainly have been outrageous if the rent of a tenant pig farmer had been shoved up in accordance with the profitability of the cereal sector. We pointed out to the Minister that that could happen under the Bill as drafted. The replacement of the original words by the phrase
the current economic conditions in the relevant sector of agriculture
is clearly infinitely better. It is also better than the drafting suggested in amendment No. 5, so just for once I simply offer my thanks to the Minister.

Mr. John MacKay: I wish to respond briefly to one point. It is not the Government but the arbiter who requires the information. If the limitation of geography were added to the limitation of sector in the Government amendment the arbiter would be hard put to define the general conditions in the sector.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

TERMINATION OF TENANCIES ACQUIRED BY SUCCESSION

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 27, leave out 'of cases 1, 2, 3, 6 or 7' and insert `case'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'on that ground'.

Mr. O'Neill: The amendment would include cases 4 and 5 in the list of criteria. It would restore the position so at to require the landlord in every instance to justify his reasons for refusing to grant a continuance of the lease. We believe that that would be more consistent, providing an approach that would cover every situation, and that the amendment will thus improve the Bill.
Amendment No. 8 widens the criteria to apply the fair and reasonable provision across the board. That, too, would improve the Bill and would permit a consistency of application of the criteria not achieved by the present wording. We believe that the amendment would be helpful in allowing the arbitration and appeals procedures to take place on a footing of equal weight for all the criteria.

Mr. Home Robertson: I support the amendment. Clause 4 allows the land court to exercise some discretion, as it were, and to grant possession only where a reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. I cannot understand why the Bill as drafted specifically excludes consideration of the resources and training of the tenant. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the amendment would be acceptable to the Government. If the court is to have discretion on all the other points, why should it not have discretion in relation to consideration of the resources and training of the tenant?

Mr. John MacKay: The Bill as drafted applies the fair and reasonable landlord provision to notices to quit for all cases covering old tenancies and new tenancies with the exception of the criterion of financial resources in case 4 and experience and training in case 5, both for new tenancies. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the fair and reasonable landlord provision to apply to cases 4 and 5.
In Committee we argued that the financial standing of a successor is a relevant factor in considering suitability to farm the holding effectively, as is his training and experience. It will be for the land court to determine, in the light of its knowledge and experience and in the circumstances of particular cases, whether a successor has sufficient financial resources, or sufficient training and experience, to farm the holding in question with reasonable efficiency. These are the only grounds that relate directly to the suitability and capability of the near relative successor. We consider it appropriate for the land court to take a decision in the light of the evidence before

it on these grounds alone. That is why we have excluded the fair and reasonable landlord provision from cases 4 and 5. Both sides of the industry agree with this.
To accept the amendment would be to defeat a small but important purpose of the Bill, and I must ask the House to resist it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

ARBITRATIONS

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 11, leave out from 'arbiter' to end of line 12.
The amendment is designed to afford an opportunity for a more informal style of arbitration whereby the parties concerned could agree to the appointment of an arbiter without going to the Secretary of State or the land court. We feel that such a provision could well speed up the business. In addition, it might be cheaper and easier to implement. We do not regard this as an issue of great principle—we do not think that it should be enshrined in the holy writ of the agreement between the Scottish Landowners Federation, the National Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries — but we consider it to be a reasonable amendment to which the Government should give sympathetic consideration.

Mr. John MacKay: As the Bill stands, parties will have a clear choice between agreeing to appoint an arbiter privately to determine the level of rent and rent reviews, in which event they agree in advance to accept the arbiter's decision whatever it may be, or to have the opportunity of appealing against the level of rent determined, in which event they can ask the Secretary of State to appoint an arbiter. That arbiter will be obliged by the Bill's provisions to state in writing his findings of fact and the reasons for his decision.
6.45 pm
Parties will therefore have a clear choice of opting for private rent arbitration, in the clear knowledge that: there will be no right of appeal, or for appointment by the Secretary of State, in which case there will be the right of appeal. To provide a right of appeal in all rent review arbitration cases, as proposed by the amendment, would represent a significant and unnecessary statutory intrusion into private arbitration. As the tenant and landlord have the choice of which route to follow, we feel it right to resist the amendment and to leave that choice available to the parties.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'one month' and insert 'two months'.
After debate in Committee I undertook to review the one-month period and to return on Report with an amendment to extend the period to two months, and that I am doing. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: Again, I thank the Minister for this gigantic compromise. He will recall that in Committee I argued that one month was not sufficient to allow a busy working farmer to deal with his paper work. I cited my own experience as a busy working farmer in my time, when it was not unheard of for brown envelopes to lie around in large quantities on my desk, especially at busy times of the year such as harvest time and seeding time.
As the Bill was drafted, it would have been quite possible for a tenant farmer to find that his appeal against a rent assessment was time barred because of the original excessive restrictions which gave the farmer only one month to give notice of appeal against his rent assessment. A historic compromise is before us, and we should be thankful for small mercies.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

GROUNDS FOR CONSENT TO OPERATION OF NOTICE TO QUIT A TENANCY LET BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1984

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 11, at end insert—
`Provided that this case shall not apply where the tenant has been engaged, throughout the period from the date of death of the person from whom he acquired right to the lease, in a course of relevant training in agriculture which he is expected to complete satisfactority within four years from the said date and has made arrangements to secure that the holding will be farmed with reasonable efficiency until he completes that course.'.
This is an attempt to make case 1 in part of the schedule the same as case 5 in part II of schedule 1. It is intended to allow a student to continue traning provided that adequate provision is made for the running of the farm during the period of training. This will be possible when the student succeeds to a tenancy following death, or whatever, after 1984. There is every likelihood now that the son of a tenant who in undergoing a course of study would not be allowed to take up the tenancy on completion of his studies. We feel that it would be helpful to put both types of tenancy—the ones in existence before 1984 and those that are post-1984 — on the same footing. We realise that is a relatively short period, but there is no reason why existing tenants should be disdadvantaged against prospective tenants under the new set of arrangements.

Mr. John MacKay: As has been said, the purpose of the amendment is to apply to existing tenancies the precise safeguard that the Bill will create for new tenancies where the successor is training for agriculture. The safeguard for new tenancies is that the land court shall not consent to a notice to quit if the successor is undergoing agricultural training. For existing tenancies, the safeguard for the young successor undergoing training lies in the requirement set out in existing legislation, as continued by the Bill, which provides that the land court shall consider whether in these circumstances a fair and reasonable landlord would serve a notice to quit.
Both the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation consider that the existing balance between landlord and tenant should not be disturbed and that the provision of the fair and reasonable landlord gives protection to existing tenancies. For new tenancies we are creating more specifically the new condition. We do not consider that there is any need to change the balance in existing tenancies because the provision of the fair and reasonable landlord acts as the safeguard for any youngster in the position under discussion.

Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the assurance that the Minister has given on the basis of fair and reasonable landlords, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 16 after 'holding', insert
`and from any agricultural unit of which the holding forms part'.
The amendment seeks to do what we tried to do by means of amendment No. 11 in respect of another of the criteria, but in this instance in respect of holdings. We believe that tenants should have the same rights after 1 January 1984 as they have enjoyed previously. If the Minister tells us that fair and reasonable landlords will be operating after 1984, we shall be happy to accept his assurance, although in this area I am not quite sure whether his assurances will be as strong as the previous ones. The amendment is similar in intent. There are seven cases in this schedule. The Opposition felt it preferable to have them all on the same footing before and after 1 January 1984. Were it not for the expedition of this business, the House might have debated longer a previous amendment. In this instance the Minister must come up with something better than he did before. Hope springs eternal.

Mr. John MacKay: Under the existing legislation, on the death of a tenant a near relative successor cannot be challenged by a notice to quit if other land of at least the size of a two-man unit which he occupied forms part of the same agricultural holding as the holding to which the succession relates. Even though that other land may be geographically separated from the succession holding for future tenancies, it is intended that in these circumstances the successor will be open to challenge if he already occupies another two-man holding whether or not that other holding forms part of the same unit as the holding to which he succeeded.
I give the example of a father who is the tenant of a farm and his son is a tenant, the owner-occupier or perhaps a partner of another substantial farm larger than a two-man unit, and the son's farm is separated geographically from the father's but both are worked together as one agricultural unit. If the father died, the son as the near relative would succeed to his tenancy. Under existing legislation, the son could not be challenged on multi-occupancy grounds notwithstanding that he was already the owner or occupier of another farm of substantial size because that other farm formed part of the same agricultural unit as the holding to which the succession related.
While these provisions will continue to apply to existing tenancies, the Government consider that there should be no restriction on new tenancies. Both sides of the industry support that view.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) might accept that in those circumstances the arguments for smaller and different units do not hold. The Government are referring to the position where a big holding forms an agricultural unit with the holding of the person the succession is for. In those circumstances, the Government and the industry think it right that there should be no restriction for future tenancies, although the current restriction will apply to existing tenancies. I trust that, with that explanation and example, the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The purpose of the Bill is to introduce changes in the law governing the relationship between agricultural


landlords and tenants in Scotland, changes affecting the procedure for determining rent and rent review cases that go to arbitration and the arrangements for succession on the death of a tenant. The legislative changes had their origins in joint proposals by both sides of the industry in Scotland, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation which resulted from their concern about the decline in the number of farms available to let. The Government consider that the legislative measures in this Bill, together with the tax reliefs that we have introduced for let land, will make an important contribution to halting the decline in the let sector and safeguard the traditional landlord tenant system.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Neill: The Opposition gave the Bill a qualified welcome; they continue to be somewhat qualified in their enthusiasm for it. It is clear that the Bill resulted from lengthy negotiations between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation. Occasionally such deals or compromises are given as the reason why there should be virtually no opposition to a Bill. It would be most regrettable to set a precedent establishing that deals agreed outside should become the basis for legislation to which there should be no opposition.
Although the Opposition accept that the people involved are the best people to be consulted, the House has the final say. It is to that end that the Opposition have tabled amendments and have sought to have discussions on the legislation to ensure that the House, and not outside bodies, decides what legislation governing an important area of agricultural leasing is enacted.

Sir Hector Monro: Hon. Members would not wish the Bill to leave the House without congratulating the

Government on introducing it. For a long time change has been desired in the structure of farm tenancies in Scotland. When agreement is reached between the Scottish Landowners Federation and Scottish National Farmers Union and chartered surveyors, it is right that we should move, as the Government have done, with commendable expedition. This Bill will be welcomed throughout agriculture in Scotland.
The Labour Party tends to think that there are no tenants in the Scottish National Farmers Union. It is quite wrong. Meetings have taken place at branch level and at the headquarters of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in which it has expressed views on the proposed legislation. The Bill is a valuable step forward, and I support the Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: I did most of the speaking in Committee and perhaps it is fitting that I should have the last word on Report.
The Scottish National Farmers Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation asked for the legislation and have got it. They have prevailed on the Government and the House to give considerable concessions to landlords in respect of rent review periods and of the ability to break the succession of tenancies. I trust that after further amendments are made in the other place tenants will be given some protection from unfair rent increases. The Scottish agricultural community has been given unsubstantiated hope of more tenancies to come. I hope that that works, but I have my doubts. I am not convinced that there is much future in appealing to the good nature of landlords. The track record throughout Scottish history has not been very good on that subject.
The Bill contains one fatal flaw in its failure to address itself to the abuse of tenancy partnerships. I look forward to returning to the subject of land tenure in Scotland in the near future in a Scottish Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Northern Ireland (Dogs)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
The order is designed exclusively to deal with the problems caused by uncontrolled dogs in Northern Ireland. Those problems were recognised by the United Kingdom working party on dogs to be separate and much more serious than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Part of the order proposes to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that obtaining in Great Britain.
In the Province there has been a great increase in the stray dog population, aggravated by civil disturbances and movements of population. Attacks on people and livestock are far too common. For instance, in 1980 about 600 attacks on people and 820 on livestock were reported to the police, and the Government assume that others were not reported. More recent statistics show that several thousand injuries caused by dogs are treated in Northern Ireland hospitals every year. In the four main Belfast hospitals, the figure was nearly 2,000 for 1982.
Attacks on livestock cause not only terrible suffering to defenceless animals, but cost the fanning industry an estimated £350,000 per year. Losses on that scale have forced some farmers to abandon sheep farming and discouraged others from expanding flocks. This happens particularly on the edge of large towns. In addition, the large number of stray dogs in Northern Ireland frequently lead to traffic hazards, fouled pavements and a general nuisance. Perhaps more seriously, stray dogs can occasionally hinder and prejudice the operations of the security forces.
In recent years the police have been fully engaged in dealing with serious crime and terrorism in the Province and the Chief Constable has not been able to give as high a priority as he would have wished to enforcing the existing licensing legislation. Consequently, licence evasion is widespread. The number of dogs licensed has fallen from 120,000 in the 1950s to only some 46,000 in 1982, and it is thought that fewer than one third of dogs owned in Northern Ireland are licensed. Those statistics underline Northern Ireland's special position and the need for this legislation.
In view of the damage done, it is all the more remarkable that Northern Ireland legislation has fallen behind that of Great Britain in protecting the farmer against the worrying of his livestock. That is also the case with controls over guard dogs and breeding establishments. Therefore, the order would bring Northern Ireland generally in line with Great Britain in those areas. There is also the need for consolidation, since the existing legislation relating to dogs in Northern Ireland is comprised of about two dozen separate measures.
For many years environmental and welfare interests, farmers and the general public have been pressing the Government for the introduction of new legislation in Northern Ireland to alleviate the problems. The problems are caused mainly by inconsiderate owners, some of whom seem to leave their dogs to fend for themselves. That could be largely solved by a more responsible attitude to dog ownership. Therefore, a primary objective in framing the

order was to encourage responsible dog ownership as being in the best interest both of society in general and of dogs.
The Northern Ireland proposals would relieve the police of the burden of dog control functions and transfer the responsibility to district councils. It is hoped that this, together with the other new measures proposed, will minimise the number of stray dogs and ensure the licensing and effective control of all other dogs throughout the province. The proposals are based largely on the recommendations of the United Kingdom working party report on dogs, taking due account of the points made in the extensive and wide-ranging consultations with the many interests involved, mainly of course in Northern Ireland, and in the Northern Ireland Committee in November.
I should at this stage point to one of the very significant changes to which I agreed following that Northern Ireland Committee debate. I now propose that district councils should have direct responsibility for licensing and should retain their own revenue from licensing. It was proposed initially that licences would be issued through post offices, with all revenue being channelled into a dog fund operated by the Department and subsequently disbursed to district councils. This would have meant a considerable reduction in the revenue available for dog control, since both Post Office and departmental adminstration costs would have had to be deducted. This is a major change and will, among other things, place an additional responsibility on district councils.
I now deal with some of the main features of the order. The first relates to the cost of a dog licence. Article 7 provides for an increase in the licence fee to £5. I must emphasise that this is not taxation, but a charge or levy specifically required to help finance the new dog control service which is needed to deal with the special problems to which I have referred. It is suggested that the proposed sum is too high. However, anyone who owns a dog will appreciate that even the sum of £5—which works out at as little as lop per week — represents only a small proportion of the overall cost of keeping and feeding a dog. A £5 fee, however, is sufficiently large to make an owner think seriously about taking on the responsibilities of dog ownership and it should make the acquisition of dogs on impulse less likely. A licence fee at this level will have a sobering effect and will help develop a sense of responsibility. If the whole burden of the cost of dog control were, for instance, to be put on the rates, that principle would be lost. We must have effective registration as part of the dog control scheme and a realistic licence fee to cover both administration costs in registration and local authority control services.
We recognise that for elderly people — many of whom are on low incomes—such an increase will mean an extra burden. We therefore considered whether it would be proper to help alleviate that problem. On this, we have been generally guided by the approach followed by Governments of all parties, that the pension should be as high as possible in the circumstances and that elderly people should generally be free to choose how they spend that money, rather than the Government choosing their preferences for them. That should apply to dog licences. On the other hand, where an elderly person is living on his or her own a dog can be very important for companionship, so we propose to make an exception in that case. For persons over 65 living alone there will be


a half rate licence. We are taking an age limit which is the same for men and women rather than the different ages at which they become eligible for the state pension. Most of the existing concessions for the elderly apply at age 65 regardless of sex.
We shall also continue the traditional exemption relating to guide dogs for the blind. Various approaches have been made in regard to a similar exemption for the deaf. I do not propose to include such assistance in this order. There are virtually no examples of properly trained dogs for the deaf in Northern Ireland. However, we propose to allow exemptions for such dogs by subordinate legislation as the scheme develops in Northern Ireland. It is not as straightforward a matter as that relating to the blind, since the deaf are a less easily definable group and there are varying degrees of deafness.
There is also the question of those who, for one good reason or another, keep a number of dogs on their premises. We propose a block licence—details are in article 8 —to to cover them. That will be available at a cost of £12·50 to breeders who keep on the same premises three or more unsterilised bitches, any of which is used for breeding, and to owners who keep on the same premises three or more dogs of either sex which are registered with the Kennel Club or other prescribed registering organisation. The block licence will also be available to operators of registered guard dog kennels who keep no fewer than three dogs which are used as guard dogs elsewhere.
If licensing controls are to be effectively enforced it is essential that dogs should be easily identified. To that end article 31 includes powers to prescribe and regulate the wearing by dogs of a collar with the keeper's name and address on the collar, or on a badge attached to the collar, or some other means of identification. The Department may also prescribe and regulate the wearing by dogs of discs or other means of licence identification attached to the collar and make provision for such licence discs to be issued by councils along with the licence.
It is proposed that part of the costs of the scheme should be met initially from the district rates. It is the intention that the rates contribution will be phased out and the scheme will become self-supporting. To that end, both basic and block licences will be reviewed regularly and if necessary adjusted by order subject to affirmative resolution.
It is difficult to estimate the costs of the scheme. It will be up to district councils to assess the size of the problem with which they are confronted and to employ such staff and take such measures as they consider necessary to deal with the problem in their area. I have taken account of the expressed desire of local authorities, and Northern Ireland Members in the Northern Ireland Committee, that councils should be responsible for collecting and retaining the licence fees in their areas, for setting up their own structures and for using their own discretion according to the circumstances of their districts.
As I mentioned earlier, the provision for a central dog fund has been removed from the draft order and district councils will receive the entire revenue from licence fees collected in their areas. District councils may carry out the issue of licences direct from their own offices or may enter into contracts with other agencies, such as the Post Office, as they think fit. Doubtless they will wish to carry out their operations as economically as possible. It is difficult to say what extra staff they will need or what other expenditure

will be involved. It is anticipated that the new licensing arrangements and the enforcement activities of council officers will increase the uptake of licences.
We want to discourage the impulse acquisition of dogs, because they are often abandoned after a short period of ownership. I have mentioned the likely effect of a £5 licence fee in this regard, but the order also makes it a requirement for a person, except where exempt, to purchase a licence before taking possession of a dog. Articles 19 and 20 make it an offence on the part of both the person who acquires a dog and the person who sells or gives it away if a licence has not been obtained before the dog changes hands.
The order enables district councils to operate dog control services to collect strays and to enforce the provisions of the order. Article 40 makes it mandatory for councils to employ authorised officers to the extent necessary to deal with the problem and to make provision for stray dogs either through the use of their own pounds or by arrangement with owners of approved kennels.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the money that is raised in fixed penalties go to the local authority?

Mr. Butler: The money that is raised in penalties or fines will flow, as is normal, to the national Exchequer.
The powers conferred on authorised officers in the exercise of their duties include powers to ask the name and address of a person when an offence is suspected and power to require the production of a dog licence. The powers of entry of the authorised officer represent the minimum necessary to enforce the provisions of the order. To prevent a dog from attacking a person, or ending such attack or preventing or ending the worrying of livestock, an authorised officer may enter any land. That power does not extend to a dwelling house or its curtilage.
As to inspection of guard dog kennels or breeding establishments, an authorised officer of the district council may enter such premises only with the consent of the occupier or under the authority of a warrant granted by a resident magistrate.
There has been considerable debate about the extent to which dogs should be kept under control on a leash. I want to be as unrestrictive as possible. Therefore, dogs will have to be kept on a leash only in pedestrian precincts, and, to prevent livestock worrying, on land where livestock are present by right, except when the dog is on the land with the authority of the landowner. However, the order includes reserve powers similar to those in existing legislation to extend the requirements, if necessary, to other roads.
There will be exceptions from those controls for working dogs such as sheep dogs, police dogs or dogs being used in a pack of hounds or for such other purposes as the Department may specify by order.
The order clarifies and reinforces the law on attacks by dogs on people and livestock. It redresses an anomaly in existing legislation which makes it an offence if a dog attacks livestock, but not if it attacks people. In future, attacks on people or livestock will both attract a fine up to a maximum of £200, or £500 if the dog was urged to attack by the owner. There will, of course, be appropriate exemptions for dogs that are used as guard dogs and for police purposes.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is


behaving in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked
a model interpretation of an animal attacking a person, or is it specific to this order? Does my hon. Friend believe that it is so widely drawn as to lead to misunderstanding in so far as a dog barking at someone could be conceived as a dog that is about to attack?

Mr. Butler: I ask my hon. Friend whether he really believes that his example would be interpreted by the courts as meeting the second part of the definition. I accept that it is not easy to define what constitutes an attack on a person. No doubt the courts will have to interpret as they see fit. However, we believe that the way in which the order is worded should be sufficient to distinguish between those dogs which appear to be about to attack and the type of misunderstandings and fears that might arise in someone of a rather timid nature.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a point that has been raised by others. We intend to monitor that provision in the normal way. Case history will undoubtedly develop. We have considered that point with considerable care. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we cannot tolerate people, let alone livestock, being attacked by dogs. Perhaps not all of the cases of injury that I mentioned have been caused by an attack as is here defined, but the few thousands of injuries that are treated in hospital each year are significant and demonstrate the scale of the problem. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is right to take steps that seem appropriate to overcome that problem.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I am worried about the phrase "apprehension of being attacked" in the order. Apprehension is not a strong word. I wonder whether the advice that my hon. Friend took when the order was being considered included consultations with people who know and understand dogs.
Perhaps I might give an illustration. The West Highland terrier has a great reputation, through its pedigree, for hunting. I do not believe that hunting has anything to do with it, but, at times, it has a fierce disposition. To its owner, however, it will be a loving and loyal dog. Perhaps I should tell the House that I have a West Highland terrier for which I am responsible. It can pass someone in the street to whom it will take an immediate dislike and make that clear by snarling. A timid person could become worried about the dog, but it has never attacked anyone. If the words
behaving in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked
were interpreted literally, and I took my dog on a visit to Belfast, it would be up in court in a matter of hours and be destroyed.

Mr. Butler: I hope that my hon. Friend will visit Belfast and, by all means, he may bring his dog. Should the House approve the order, I hope that the terrible fate that my hon. Friend has described will not befall his dog. If my hon. Friend comes to Northern Ireland and his dog is as he described it, I can only encourage him to keep it on a leash. In that case, the apprehension that even the most timid person might have on seeing my hon. Friend's dog's growling visage and other demonstrations of ferocity will disappear when he sees that the dog is firmly on a leash. That is how we should cope with that.
Northern Ireland farmers whose livestock are attacked will in future enjoy the same legal protection as their counterparts in Great Britain. They will be provided with a defence in proceedings arising from the shooting of a dog if the dog was worrying, or about to worry, livestock and there were no reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying, or if the dog had been worrying livestock, had not left the vicinity and could not be identified. Those provisions remove the anomaly in existing Northern Ireland law under which, if a dog that is about to worry livestock is shot, the farmer has a defence only if the dog is shot on hill land. I am sure that the House will recognise the need to bring that legislaion at least into line with British legislation because of the suffering caused to animals and the loss experienced by farmers.

Mr. William Ross: I take it from what the Minister has said that if the less favoured areas were to be extended before this clause came into operation a person inside the new boundary could shoot the dog, whereas he cannot do so at present?

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me on that point—he may be talking about a highly hypothetical matter—but I should be glad to seek advice on this issue. Whether the definition presently used for hill land under the relevant legislation would cover an extended area, I do not know. But I shall find out. We cannot say whether or when there will be an extension of the less favoured areas. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point, because it may prove to be of benefit in the event of such an extension if this legislation is not implemented.
The order also introduces controls on guard dogs and breeding establishments similar to those in the Guard Dogs Act 1975 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. In Northern Ireland, however, controls will be based on registration by district councils as opposed to the licensing system in Great Britain. It is not proposed to charge a registration fee, but establishments will be subject to certain standards and to inspection. Guard dogs are widely used in the present security context in Northern Ireland. For that reason, and on police advice, it has been decided not to implement immediately the powers to require the presence of handlers on premises where guard dogs are used. It is considered sufficient in the meantime to require the registration of guard dog kennels and the posting of warning notices. However, those provisions will not apply to the dog on domestic premises that may occasionally operate as a "guard dog".
The working party report highlighted certain weaknesses in the Breeding of Dogs Act. It reported that requirements were evaded by the farming out of bitches to other premises, that local authorities had no powers to inspect unlicensed premises being used for breeding purposes and that there is no provision at all for puppy farms where puppies are reared for sale or export. In addition, the Act covers breeding for sale only. The provisions of the order are designed specifically to overcome those shortcomings.
To ease pressure on the present overworked courts system in Northern Ireland, the order extends the fixed penalty procedure to certain offences under the order. In addition, it will apply to offences under the Control of Greyhounds Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 and fouling offences where byelaws are made under the Local


Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. In line with the recommendations of the working party, penalties for licensing offences should have a deterrent value, being fixed at three times the current licence fee, or £25, whichever is greater. For other offences to which a fixed penalty relates the level will be £10. The system will work as other fixed penalty systems, of which the most obvious example is the traffic penalty
I have already covered some of the points in the order where amendments were introduced after public consultation and consideration by the Northern Ireland Committee. The changes that give district councils direct responsibility for the issue of licences and remove the need for the administration of a central dog fund by the Department have been warmly welcomed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland. We have also gone some considerable way to meet the views of dog-owning interests. For example, article 7 has been amended to provide for wider consultation with interested parties on changes in licence fees. The block licence concession has been extended to include dogs registered with organisations other than the Kennel Club, which will be listed in subordinate legislation.
We have re-examined the control of dogs on roads under article 25 and have decided to take a more flexible approach, initially restricting the requirement to put the dog on a leash to pedestrian precincts, with the option to extend to other roads if necessary.
There has been great pressure from many interests for several years seeking new dog control legislation. We hope that this order, which is designed to encourage responsible dog ownership, will make a major contribution towards solving the serious dog control problems in Northern Ireland.
Naturally, there have been questions about whether this legislation is likely to be extended to Great Britain. We have been asked whether it is a precursor of further legislation. Let me make it plain, as has been done on several occasions in the House by the Ministers responsible, that the Government have no plans so to do.

Miss Janet Fookes: Pity.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Today we are coming to the end of a long road, because the implications of this Bill have been around in Northern Ireland since about 1975. The legislation has gone through a long consultative process, and the Minister has found out, just as I did, that once one starts the consultative process that is required for Northern Ireland legislation it becomes hard to end it. However, the Minister has decided to end the consultation and to bring this Bill before the House.
I do not complain about the fact that there have been long consultations. My only complaint is that the Minister did not take into consideration all our suggestions in Committee. For the first time in decades the House is debating dog legislation. In Committee we had a good consultative debate, and I am sorry that it did not attract more attention in the media in the rest of the United Kingdom, if only because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who told us about some of the problems with the dog population in Northern Ireland. No one will quibble with the Minister's figures for the number of strays. In Northern Ireland stray dogs do not

just go about in platoons or companies; in some areas they are almost at battalion strength, whether they are green or orange dogs.
Some of those who were involved in consultations with the Government told me that they were worried because not all of their suggestions had been taken on board. Their main anxiety is that, since this is the first such Bill, it should be monitored tightly for some time. We are travelling into the unknown with this Bill and some people are worried that dogs may be picked up and destroyed at very short notice. The British Veterinary Association believes that five days is a relativey short time. There is also worry about article 33 whereby dogs attacking or about to attack people can be lifted, summarily tried, and executed very quickly indeed. Those are just some of the issues that have emerged from the public's response.

Mr. Bowden: During the early stages of the order, did the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with and seek advice from people who know and have compassion, love and understanding for dogs? If so, whom did he consult?

Mr. Concannon: There is doubt that the problems in Northern Ireland portrayed by the Minister are correct. They first came to our attention in 1975 during discussions with the National Farmers Union and various other bodies in Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all those bodies that wanted to talk to the Minister were allowed to do so. Some bodies have approached me about areas with which they are not happy, but they are matters of detail. The British Veterinary Association still wants the order to be passed.
I do not disagree with the way in which the order deals with the problems in Northern Ireland. It is necessary to bring the legislation up to date. Northern Ireland has a large problem with strays and people who do not license their dogs. However, that does not apply only to Northern Ireland. There has been a meeting of the Select Committee on Public Accounts since our last debate when certain suggestions came from the House. I was surprised to find that they came down on the side of the Committee and against the Government on the financial aspects of dog licensing. Some high-powered people appeared before the Select Committee on Public Accounts—Mr. Gordon S. Downey, CB, Comptroller and Auditor General; Mr. C. H. A. Judd, Treasury Officer of Accounts; and Sir George Moseley, KCB; Mr. G. Wedd, and Mr. J. Parker from the Department of the Environment. The Committee dealt with the problem of dog licensing in the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that later, but I want to stress that we have no complaints about the legislation for dog control.
I thank the Minister for making local councils responsible for dog licences rather than the Department of Agriculture. That is where the responsibility should belong in Northern Ireland. However, as I have warned the Minister, if we are not careful we shall spoil the impact of the order in Northern Ireland unless we are seen to he treating the people of Northern Ireland fairly and justly.
The Minister said that over 50 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland do not buy licences. It would have been much better if he had said that over 50 per cent. of all the people of the United Kingdom do not buy licences. There is a problem of strays in the rest of the United Kingdom as well as in Northern Ireland. Although other areas might not have the pack problem of Northern Ireland, either in


company or battalion strength, the problems in the United Kingdom are not unlike those of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) stays she will learn a lot about the problems from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and no doubt enjoy his speech at the same time.
I am worried about the financial aspects of the Bill. There are only two directions in which we can go. I said in Committee that dog licensing was first introduced to raise revenue. Over the past four years dog licences have cost the Exchequer £7 million. We have now reached the ludicrous position where this year the revenue from dog licences in the United Kingdom will be only £1 milion while the cost of the licensing service will be £4 million —a loss to the Exchequer or the British taxpayer of £3 million.
I accept, as the Minister said, that this is a Northern Ireland order. I also know that if legislation works well in Northern Ireland there is a temptation to introduce it elsewhere. We learned that on the economic front. There is always that danger. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why we are going to spoil the order for a pittance. I can understand why the Minister says that it would teach people to be good dog owners and lovers. But to increase the fee in Northern Ireland to £5 when it will be only 37½p in Britain—7s 6d as I still call it—will strike the people of Northern Ireland as being unfair, no matter how the Minister dresses it up.
The Minister says that the money will be for the administration of the scheme by local councils but we read on the back page of the Public Accounts Committee report:
The whole cost of the Post Office agency, even for collection and handing over the licence money to the local authorities, is borne by the Department of the Environment.
The subsidy and the £7 million that has been lost in dog licensing throughout the United Kingdom have been borne by the United Kingdom taxpayer. We are now going to charge the people of Northern Ireland £5 for dog licences whose cost will remain at 7s 6d elsewhere. Fewer rather than more people will buy dog licenses at £5. However, people in Northern Ireland are also taxpayers. I have a dog for various reasons—security being one—and I have a licence for it. Like me, it probably has more courage than sense. The last thing that I want is for the people of Northern Ireland to subsidise my dog licence through their taxes. Not only will they be charged £5 for their dog licences but they will contribute to the Exchequer by paying their whack of the £3 million shortfall into the kitty to supplement my dog licence.

Mr. Marlow: Is not the case really somewhat different? As my hon. Friend said, this money will be used to pay for the dog- warden enforcement scheme, but the money will not even be sufficient to pay for that scheme. There are dog wardens in certain districts of the United Kingdom. At present those schemes are paid for wholly by the ratepayer. The difference between this scheme and schemes in the rest of the United Kingdom is that one is by being paid for by the dog-owning public and the other is being paid for by the ratepayer. Is it not fair to argue that the dog-owning community should be more involved than ratepayers as a whole?

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Member can dress it up as he likes, but to the 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland this will be the big bad Westminster Government putting a fast one over the people of Northern Ireland. It will be as simple and as plain as that. They will think that they are again being unfairly treated. We can scoff at the licence being £5 and we can knock it down to this, that, or the other a week, but for me it is not worth the aggro and never was. We are discussing only a pittance. Even the £7 million shortfall over four years is only a pittance.
The cost of the dog licence could be increased to cover the fee collecting and so on, which would mean a substantial increase in the cost of the licence not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom. But, as the report of the Public Accounts Committee says, Governments have dodged the issue. We are told that it is not a priority. If it is not a priority, surely it cannot be a priority in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to spoil the Bill. I want the Bill to come into operation and I know that the people of Northern Ireland—farmers and everyone else—want it to come into operation. But I do not want it and its application to be spoilt by the people of Northern Ireland thinking that they are being unfairly treated. I made this point in the Committee. I am sorry that it has been taken up because I thought that this was a perfect opportunity, for the first time, to examine the current licence fee of 37½p and to give a lead to the rest of the United Kingdom.
My opinion is that we should forget the £1 million a year collected for dog licences and to deal with this in another way. There are other ways of doing it. More than 100 local authorities in the United Kingdom have a dog warden service. The cost on the rates is negligible. The legislation is necessary and is wanted by the people of Northern Ireland, but let us not botch it by imposing an unfair financial burden. The people of Northern will see it as an unfair financial burden but we will regard £5 a year as not very much. But it will be £5 in Northern Ireland and 37½p over here. The people of Northern Ireland will see it as the Government being vindictive to them.

Mr. Adam Butler: I listened with care to the right hon. Member in Committee and today to discover what he would do. He seemed to indicate that he would put all the cost on to the rates in Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that that would be his policy?

Mr. Concannon: There are ways and means by which it could be done. It could come straight from the Exchequer. This year, £4 million will flow straight from the Exchequer to the dog lovers of the United Kingdom, and we will not do a thing about it. Yet in Northern Ireland we will do something, because we will make the people of Northern Ireland pay for a service for which we in the rest of the United Kingdom will not pay. The Department of the Environment will foot the bill. That is the difference. It will be paid for by the Department of the Environment which, by the end of this year, will, over the past four years, have paid £7 million to the Post Office for doing it.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is complaining about the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Yet, at the same time, he says that an Exchequer grant should be given to pay for the service in Northern Ireland. What will the right hon. Gentleman say to the district councils in the


United Kingdom which have dog warden schemes? Should they be paid for by Exchequer grant as well? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be consistent, he must be wholly consistent.

Mr. Concannon: That is what I am trying to be. The people of Northern Ireland are part and parcel of the United Kingdom. They should not be treated differently. They have different problems but, financially, they should not be treated differently.
Dog owners have been subsidised this year by the Department of the Environment—there are no ifs and buts about that—to the tune of £4 million, or £7 million over four years. Governments — I am sure that the Labour Government was the same—do not consider this matter to be a priority. It is small beer—a few million pounds; it is not worth the hassle.
Although the legislation is necessary for Northern Ireland, I do not want it to get off on the wrong footing with the people of Northern Ireland. I argued this in Committee. Unfortunately, judging from the responses of the people of Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same response will come from other quarters after I have sat down—this is exactly what will happen. The people of Northern Ireland will see this as a penal form of taxation which does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Not only will we in the rest of the United Kingdom be subsidised, but people tend to forget that those who are in work in Northern Ireland are also taxpayers. They pay their share of what is paid by the Department of the Environment for our subsidised dog licences. It might not be much, but the fact that they contribute to it will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland.
I did not wish to speak at length, but I thought it important to tell the Minister that I am sorry, after all this time, that we are still arguing about the financial aspects. But for the financial aspects the order would have gone through on the nod. A short five-minute speech from each side of the House would have been enough to see it through.

Mr. Marlow: indicated dissent.

Mr. Concannon: No? I am going on my experience of Northern Ireland orders that go through late at night. I am sorry that I still find myself standing at the Dispatch Box pointing out the financial penalties that will be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland, even though I want this legislation. I know that it is needed in Northern Ireland, and I did not want it to be sullied by disagreement over the financial aspects. After all, the cost could come out of the petty cash tin of the Department of the Environment; it represents hardly anything in cash terms. But here we are, having an unnecessary argument about it.
I should be only too delighted if the Minister would see his way to considering the financial aspects again. I would then wish the order well. I hope that it will help to solve the problems and to prevent some of the terrible attacks that take place not only on animals but on individuals and property in Northern Ireland. Even if the Minister did not take notice of what we said in Committee, I should have thought that he would take notice of the report of the Public Accounts Committee on dog licences. If he had done so, I am sure that he would have proposed a different means of financing the scheme.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: As the House will know, I rarely intervene on Northern Ireland affairs. I do so tonight because I believe there are wider long-term implications involved in the draft order. I have an interest to declare in that my wife and I have responsibility for the care and control of a West Highland terrier. It is a lively dog which at times tends to be rather aggressive, which is inevitable with a dog coming from a breed trained to hunt—not that I have or will use my dog for hunting.
I am appalled at some of the proposals in the order. There is no doubt that many people feel that it is bound to be used as a prototype in future for the rest of the United Kingdom. An article in Dog World of 6 August 1982 states:
These proposals are of far wider significance than Northern Ireland alone. If they go through, then close attention may well be paid to them in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The order must have been drafted by a person with an almost pathological hatred of dogs—at the very least, with little understanding and knowledge of them. The impression has been given that the order is supported by various groups and organisations, veterinary surgeons, and so on. An organisation which has not so far been mentioned is the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the president of which, Mr. Desmond J. Thompson, in a letter dated 28 March 1983, told me:
I stress that as a profession we are in favour of the sensible control of dogs, but when one links the definition of 'attacking a person' with the ultimate penalty of automatic death of the animal, then I feel that this is unacceptable in any legislation on dog control.
That is what the order will mean.
I was unconvinced by the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my intervention. In effect, he said, "If you have a dog on a lead in Belfast, a situation could not arise where anybody in the street would have a sufficient degree of apprehension so that the court might, if the case were brought before it, take action under the draft order." With respect, he does not understand dogs and he certainly does not understand West Highland terriers. I could have my dog on a lead, under control—this has happened in Brighton—and, because the lead is a certain length and the pavement is narrow and the dog might not like the hat being worn by the person coming towards us, it will make that clear by leaping forward, thereby probably showing its aggressive instincts, snarling and showing its teeth. Its bark is there rather than its bite.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Never take it to Brighton's nudist beach.

Mr. Bowden: That is an unfair intervention. I am being serious.
The action that I have described could cause serious apprehension to a person who did not like or understand dogs. There could be cases of malicious intent arising out of such circumstances.
When elderly dog owners study the order, it will cause them concern because in Northern Ireland their dogs could be brought before the court. I do not want to sound over-sentimental, but for many people in Northern Ireland—indeed, throughout the United Kingdom—dogs provide companionship and friendship. For those on their own, the elderly, and for those who have lost their families and relations, dogs can be the only thing life is worth living for, and the House should give due weight to that.
I believe that animals have rights and that the order is an attack on the rights of one group of animals. Nobody, in or outside the House, would do other than support sensible controls and responsible dog ownership. It is disgraceful that some owners should allow their dogs to foul pavements, not keep them properly under control on leads in the streets and allow them to endanger life by letting them run loose in the roads. The most severe penalties should be imposed to prevent that happening. Keeping dogs under control is vital because they can, and sometimes do, cause accidents and put human life at risk. That group represents a minority of dog owners, and they should not be used as the basis for an attack on the animals collectively.
We have discussed the costs. On 13 April the RSPCA wrote to me about that, saying:
There is real concern in Ulster, which we are unable to appreciate fully over here, that the Ulster SPCA—currently caring for all the stray dogs in the province on behalf of the Ulster Constabulary—will be replaced as the 'agent' by more than a score of district councils, each having its own shelter.
The implications are interesting. I do not want to be over-humorous or to put into context something that is fundamentally serious, but one can almost hear somebody claiming that dogs will have to be segregated into Protestants and Catholics.

Mr. Fitt: I was going to suggest that.

Mr. Bowden: It would be utterly ludicrous for anybody to suggest that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would not really suggest it.
I was not convinced by my hon. Friend's closing comments that the order would not at some time in future apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. He said that there were no plans for that to happen, but we have heard that from Governments in the past, only to find plans emerging a few years later because of so-called changing circumstances or experience in other parts of the United Kingdom. I warn the Minister that if any such order were introduced to apply to any other part of the United Kingdom — including Brighton — he would have a tremendous battle on his hands.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not only monitor the order carefully but will assure us that within one year there will be a full and detailed review of it, with a report to Parliament on how it has been operating and that, unless the House is satisfied that it has been operating effectively, immediate changes will be made.

Mr. William Ross: The order has made a great deal of interesting progress since it first appeared on the Order Paper. That progress has resulted in a rather more acceptable system of dog control than that which was first proposed. After the public consultation period, the Minister produced no fewer than six pages of proposed amendments. After the Northern Ireland Committee met and discussed them, the proposed amendments reappeared, but this time there were more than seven pages of them. That would not have happened if the folk who are affected by the order and hon. Members had been satisfied with the proposal as it first appeared.
We who represent the people of Northern Ireland are still not satisfied with the present form of the order. Like

the curate's egg, it is good in parts. The order does a number of things which need to be done, but it still has serious deficiences. It is a classic example of the evils of direct rule. If the order had appeared not as an Order in Council but as a Bill, it would have had a proper Committee stage and many of the matters to which we object would have been deleted by argument and vote. However, that is not the case. We are left now with an order which has serious deficiences, some of which may prove fatal.
On 24 March I met farmers from the Coleraine area who had recently suffered considerable loss from sheep worrying. There were 50 or 60 people at the meeting. When I asked how many of them had suffered loss or damage as a result of dogs attacking their flocks, all except two held up their hands. I said, "You are very lucky, aren't you?" They said, "Actually, no. We do not keep sheep. We came along to see what the meeting was about." The rest of the people at that meeting were there because they had suffered loss or damage. One would find much the same result wherever a meeting of farmers was held in Northern Ireland. At some time, every sheep farmer can expect the unwelcome attentions of killer dogs.
However, those farmers were practical men. They understood the limitations of the law and what could and could not be done. I pointed out to them that this was a control of dogs order, not a sheep protection order. Once that is clear, one begins to look at the subject rather more carefully than when one is embroiled in the emotional sight of dead sheep and lambs. Once the farmers saw that, they began to question the strengths and weaknesses of the order as I believe it has not been questioned in the Department of Agriculture or by the leaders of the National Farmers Union.
I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to bring the livestock protection section of the order—articles 28 to 30 — into operation within two months of the order being approved. He intends, apparently, to bring the remainder of the order into operation bit by bit. I wonder whether he will monitor the effects of each step before introducing the next. I believe that he would be wise to do that. I wonder whether there will be a review of the order in future. I shall return to that point, because the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) did not express a view about it.
Farmers in Northern Ireland have expressed the fear that there may be further delay in the implementation of the order. However, the main problem is not delay, but how the law will be enforced. That is the crux of the matter. One speaker at the meeting to which I referred commented that a mountain of paper, no matter how well-intentioned, would not stop one sheep-worrying. We shall want to see how the law is enforced and how well it carries out its basic purpose of ensuring responsible dog ownership and, although it is not spelt out clearly, reducing the large numbers of dogs which are at present running around in Northern Ireland. There is no point in closing our eyes to the fact that one of the order's primary objects is to reduce the dog population.
There is difficulty in identifying a killer dog. How does one know that a dog likes mutton until it has sampled a live sheep? There is no way. I speak as a practical farmer. No one can identify a dog that will kill before it kills. All farmers who keep sheep have a simple straight forward view of that. They say, "Every dog is a potential killer." I believe that that is accurate. All dogs, whether small or


large, are natural hunting animals. All dogs are potential killers and, in certain circumstances, will become killers of livestock. There is no point in saying, "My dog is perfectly well behaved. He would not touch a flea." In different circumstances, that dog can become a thoroughly vicious and dangerous animal. The most dangerous sheep-killing dogs are sheepdogs, because they know precisely what they are doing.
How is it intended to enforce legislation? Councils, the regions or perhaps the Ulster SPCA will provide wardens. Dog wardens will be employed, given a status and, I assume, some training and certain hours during which they are supposed to carry out their duties. If my reading of the position is right, some councils will expect them to work part-time only as dog wardens.
It is essential that there should be guidelines as to the type of people who are to be employed on this work. They must be carefully selected. I believe that they must have an understanding of animals, especially dogs, before they can do their job properly. The guidelines must ensure uniformity in the type of people employed on this important work.
There must be training for dog wardens or dog catchers. I do not know how the Minister or the councils will go about that aspect of the work. I fear that the dog wardens will learn on the job. I do not believe that that is satisfactory. I assume that regulations will be drawn up governing the employment and training of dog wardens. I should like an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to consider those regulations before wardens are employed.
A warden will require to have not only his working hours defined, but a certain amount of equipment. Among the items of equipment that the man or woman will need will be a vehicle to get round the countryside. Whenever he arrives at a farm where sheep-killing is taking place, he will be confronted with the problem of catching the dog. The farmer or his servant can go out and shoot a dog that is worrying, is about to worry or has just stopped worrying livestock. Can the warden do the same thing? If not, how is he to get his hands on the dog, which has no particular desire to be caught? It is not an easy task. If the warden sees the dog in the distance and cannot catch it, the farmer will shoot it. We are blinding ourselves to the realities and the practicalities of how the thing will work on the ground if we try to deny that point.
What will be the cost of this service? I assume that since we last discussed this matter in November, in the light of all the discussions that took place in the Committee and all the discussions and correspondence there have been on the subject, the Minister has had a very careful survey carried out into the actual cost of the service. Therefore, fresh figures must be available. My understanding is that the £5 licence is expected to cover half of the total cost. I wonder what the long-term situation will be. For how long will councils be expected to get half the money from the licence fee and the other half out of the rates?
What is to be the role of the police in this matter? It has already been said that the Chief Constable and his men are otherwise employed. We appreciate that the RUC is employed on more serious matters than catching sheepdogs and controlling other dogs in Northern Ireland, but the police have a role to play. I strongly suspect that, no matter how many dog wardens we employ, the police will still have a large and important role to play.
One aspect that seems to have been ignored is that there is a substantial shift of responsibility from the police to the dog wardens and the councils, including a shift of responsibility for keeping and caring for dogs that are taken into custody, as it were. Until now the RUC has been paying the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for caring for and for going out and picking up unwanted animals. They are taken into the society's kennels, kept there for a time and then given to a new owner or destroyed. For this the police pay a sum of money each year to the society. How much is spent on that at the present time? It might be rather more than we think. Certainly it should be enough to cover the cost. I assume it must be, because I do not see how the society could carry on with the task unless its costs were covered.
The £5 tax is not only an assigned revenue but an open-ended commitment. It is, I believe, a most dangerous commitment which is to be put on the shoulders of the dog owners, because, as I have already said, it is intended that eventually the licence fee will cover the total cost of the service.
A number of possibilities flow from this position. We can have at one end of the scale a completely gold-plated dog warden service which will have 100 per cent. effective control of dogs and cost what the gold-plating indicates — a very high sum indeed; a direct tax on the dog owners of Northern Ireland. Alternatively, we can have an extremely poor dog warden service which will be totally ineffective and bring the law into disrepute.
I should like to go further than the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). If the total cost of this service were placed on the shoulders of the councils and the councillors, I believe that they would take a far more responsible attitude. As long as the councils can say that the dog owners must pay, there will be pressure on the council to provide the gold-plated service. On the other hand, in a town where there is pressure from rising rates, there will be pressure in the other direction—to have a poor service.
I compare town and country in this context. The council with a large rural hinterland will be under pressure from the farmers and stockholders. That will be the paramount pressure on such a council. In the towns, however, the pressure will be the other way. It will be from the ratepayers, who will be seeking to keep the rates down, whether or not the dogs are controlled. It is wonderful what another £5 or £10 on the rates can do to a person's willingness to put up with dog dirt on the streets. I believe that most people in the towns would resent the increase in the rates which would be necessary to pay for the service. In either case, pressure on the council is not, I believe, likely to make it show responsibility, for it is the wrong sort of pressure.
If the cost falls totally on the rates, the councils, individually and collectively, and possibly even on party political lines—but that does not matter—can make a judgment as to what is needed and reasonable in the circumstances of their own areas.
A point was made earlier about the taxation problems of councils here. The point about the rates, which apparently was missed by the Minister, lies in the fact that the rates burden is directed to the problem within the council area. It is not general taxation throughout the United Kingdom; it is pinpointed on their own locality.

Mr. Adam Butler: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman made a remark to the effect that the councils would be able to tell the dog owners that they would have to find more money. If I understood him correctly, he appeared to be suggesting that district councils would be able to dictate the level of the licence fee. That, of course, is incorrect. The licence fee would be adjusted by the Department in the light of the costs of the whole operation. There would be no question of dictation.
Secondly, as part of his argument the hon. Gentleman instanced the larger town, where the tendency would be for the rates to be kept down because of the pressures from ratepayers. In those circumstances, surely it would be better to have sufficient income through a licence fee to encourage that particular council to run an efficient service rather than to succumb to the pressures of the ratepayers to do the minimum necessary.

Mr. Ross: Having studied the order with some care, I appreciate that the power to raise the licence fee does not lie with the councils. Is the Minister seriously saying that he can easily match that power, which lies in his hands, with the view expressed elsewhere that in the long run it is expected that the licence fee will meet the full cost? This means that there are going to be a lot of dogs licensed for £5 or the fee is going to go up if, as I understand it, at the present time the £5 licence will cover only half the cost.
Is the Minister saying that the Department will stand up to all the councillors in Northern Ireland if they arrive at its doorstep saying that the service is costing them X pounds in rates, the licence fee is not big enough and that they must have more money?
To aid my contention, I shall cite firearms certificates in Northern Ireland. Some years ago, before the price started to rise, a firearms certificate cost 7s. 6d. It now costs about £25 or £20 for a new firearms certificate or £13 or £14 for a renewal. That rise is far above the inflation rate in Northern Ireland and far above a reasonable cost of covering the service. That shows what can happen when one starts building a little empire for the control of any item that a person has, whether it be a gun or a dog.
I know that arguments can be made for firearms certificates, but the arguments for the high cost of firearms fees are no more valid than the arguments that will be put forward in a few years when dog licence fees rise to the same level. However, councils have only to use their best endeavours to provide a reasonable service. That attitude can cover a multitude of sins.
Another aspect of the financing of the dogs order is fines and fixed penalties. Councils will not receive fines or fixed penalties. However, as they are a direct result of the activities of their work force, I wonder whether it would be a means of getting further finance for the service if in some way the fines could be given back to the councils. Would that help the councils in the financing of the scheme? Will the Minister make it possible to pay fixed penalties, not only to the clerk of petty sessions but to the local council officer? At any rate, councils might be able to charge a collection fee, as the Post Office intended to do.
The concern of the British Veterinary Association has already been mentioned. That body has written to all of us who are concerned with the order. It says:
Article 2(2), 'Attacking a Person' (a) and (b) together with Article 33(1) order that a dog which has attacked a person must be destroyed. A dog may however attack a person who

deliberately sets out to enrage it or may attack a person because its owner incites it to do so. In these circumstances the dog is not at fault and destruction is not an appropriate punishment".
That is an accurate statement of fact. In other words, the poor dog will be bumped off because its owner is a particularly nasty character and probably should not have a dog anyway. That is the danger that is always present in mandatory sentencing of any description, whether it is for an animal or a human being. When the sentence is mandatory, the courts lose their discretion and the right to order a lesser punishment.
The BVA also states:
Also, nervous individuals may imagine a dog is going to attack when it is merely recognising their presence"—
I assume by barking or something. It further states:
The Order could make cognisance of these considerations possible if the definition under Article 2(2)(a) was worded as an unprovoked attack upon the person and Article 2(2)(b) was worded as behaving in such a manner as to cause a reasonable person apprehension of being seriously attacked".
The hon. Member for Kemptown said that he had a terrier and that some people might be frightened when that dog behaved in a certain fashion. However, if, instead of a terrier, he had an Alsatian or an Irish Wolfhound and it growled, many more people would be frightened. Therefore, we must consider not only the dog's behaviour but its size, its appearance and whether that breed has an evil reputation, as Alsatians have.
I would be frightened of some dogs growling and barking at me, but I would not be in the slightest frightened of other dogs. How can someone go to court, even a perfectly honest person, and say, "That dog barked at me and I thought that it was going to bite." One cannot say that. Some people might have malicious intent or might be easily frightened. In either case, the poor old dog will suffer unjustifiably either for the sins of the person who is setting out to tempt or enrage it or because a person is of an exceedingly nervous disposition. A young man of 18 or 20 is not likely to be as easily frightened of a barking dog as an old lady of 70.
There is also the problem of young dogs, which like to play and gambol about. A young dog will often run up to a child, excitedly wagging its tail, and then knock the child down. The child goes home screaming and the parents complain that the dog has attacked their child when the animal has done nothing of the sort. Under the terms of the order that dog would be sentenced to death. This is not a light matter. It cannot easily be resolved, unless discretion is given to the courts.
One could say a great deal more about the order. I shall restrict myself to a few brief comments on one or two of the articles. Under article 23, a dog might be destroyed within five days, yet elsewhere the order states that a person has seven days in which to produce a licence. I do not see why the poor dog should not be given an extra two days to live. It would not cost very much. Perhaps in the intervening period the owner would turn up.
In article 50 there is a curious difference between paragraphs (a) and (b). In (a) it says that a council may make a charge
for the collection and disposal of an unwanted dog".
In (b) it says that it may
make a payment of such amount as the council may determine in respect of the sterilisation of a dog".
This seems to impose a charge and make a grant for essentially the same purpose—the reduction of the dog population. For the council to make a charge for the collection and disposal of an unwanted dog is a foolish


proposal which I missed last time but which has since been brought to my attention. The more I have thought about it, the more certain I am that councils should not make a charge for the service.
If there is to be a charge for getting rid of an unwanted dog, far too many irresponsible people will just chuck the dog in the boot of the car, drive 20 miles into the country and throw it out. If they knew that the local council would dispose of the dog for nothing, they would be willing to ask it to make arrangements to do so. As a result, dogs would not be let loose in the countryside. This will be especially important in the first few years of the operation of the order when people who have just tolerated dogs will want to get rid of them. The Government should not make a charge and pay a subsidy under the same article for the purpose of reducing the dog population.
I welcome quite a few of the provisions, not least the fact that in large measure this is a consolidation order. I welcome particularly that a licence will be necessary before someone can purchase a dog. Some folk think that this will not stop impulse buying, but I believe it will and that it is a step in the right direction. The increase in penalties is also satisfactory. If penalties were to remain low, there would be no incentive for people to care for their dogs.
I also welcome wardens, although my welcome for them is more lukewarm than for the other two items. Wardens are needed, especially when the police are so much involved in other things. There will be at least one warden or perhaps two wardens in most council areas trying to control the dog problem and check on licences. A large part of their duties will be to ensure that dogs are licensed. Above all, the wardens and the police will need the support of the courts when those who transgress are prosecuted. The legislation cannot do the job for which it has been designed unless penalties are imposed. If they are not imposed, the order will be nonsense. Some of it may turn out to be nonsense in any case.
Since we last discussed the subject in the Northern Ireland Committee the Minister has gone halfway to making this a pretty good order and control mechanism. If he had gone the whole way and put the entire cost on the rates, perhaps retaining 30p more as a registration fee than as a licence, it would have been better. Even if dog licences were abolished, there would still have to be a system of registering dogs. There is no point in trying to control them if there is no record of their owners. If the Minister had left the licence fee at 30p, or even if he had brought in a slightly higher registration fee, I would not have complained. Because he is putting half of the cost on the rates and doing half by means of what is essentially a tax, I have grave difficulty in supporting the order.
For many years people have wanted something to be done about dogs in Northern Ireland. Because of all the argument, discussion, consultation and the nonsense that has been talked at times, and the emotion about sheep being killed and dogs attacking children, everyone expected far too much. Expectations were raised to an unwarranted level. We are now slowly but surely coming back down to earth, realising not only the implications but the severe limitations of the order.
It is extremely difficult to devise sensible laws for the control of dogs. They are the only large, carnivorous hunting animals to be kept in large numbers of homes. They are different from cats, because they are trainable. They are also much bigger and stronger—big enough

and strong enough to attack and seriously injure not only livestock but human beings. They are in a special category in may ways because they are so easily trainable, but ultimately they retain the wild hunting instinct which makes them extremely difficult to control.
This legislation will stand or fall on how well it is enforced and on the extent to which it reduces the number of dogs. It will stand or fall on practicalities rather than theory. With all respect to the hon. Member for Kemptown, to whom I listened with interest, we shall not know how well it is doing its job in 12 months. It is likely to be at least three years before we can judge, but al the end of that time we shall need a thoroughgoing and detailed investigation into its effectiveness throughout the Province. Such a review is especially necessary if the Minister is correct in his assessment that it will riot be extended. It is all very well for the Government to say that they do not intend to use this as a pilot scheme for the rest of the United Kingdom. It will certainly not be accepted as a pilot scheme if it fails, but if it proves effective the extension of the relevant parts of it to Great Britain will follow as surely as night follows day. One cannot escape that conclusion.
I dislike many aspects of the order, especially the financing arrangements, but I welcome certain other provisions. Had it been a Bill that we could debate and amend, great improvements could have been made, but we are left with a curate's egg—and the rotten spots may well eventually destroy the whole egg.

Miss Janet Fookes: It was with some diffidence that I contemplated intervening in the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), I do not usually intervene in matters relating to Northern Ireland, but the subject of dogs and their control is dear to my heart.
I start from a simple proposition. I am deeply concerned about the suffering caused to stray animals. Many have their lives cut short because they are unwanted and no homes can be found for them. I accept that part and parcel of the problem is the nuisance caused by large numbers of uncontrolled dogs through fouling pavements, sheep worrying, road accidents and the like, but I shall not dwell on that aspect as it has already been dealt with quite fully.
My main motivation is concern for the welfare of these unfortunate animals. Anyone who has seen, as I have so often seen, the miserable faces of those in dogs' homes and pounds, looking up with melting eyes in the hope of a new home and release from the pound, will understand why I feel so strongly about this and why I and many others have campaigned for years for better control throughout the United Kingdom. I join others in saying that I am deeply sorry that Northern Ireland has been singled out for the order. In this sense I do not regard it as being unfavourably treated. I am sorry that the rest of the United Kingdom is not being given the opportunity that is being granted to Northern Ireland.
Successive Governments of both complexions have been extraordinarily tardy in dealing with the problem and they hve been marked by procrastination and prevarication. I am sorry to learn from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have no plans to introduce a scheme somewhat similar, or in parallel, for the rest of the United Kingdom. I am tempted to use language which would be unparliamentary but I shall not do so as I have great respect


for the House. I found the comment that my hon. Friend made towards the end of his speech unsatisfactory and to smack of double standards, which I detest.
I give the order a somewhat qualified welcome. As the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has said, it contains, like the curate's egg, good and bad parts. I wish that the Government had introduced a Bill instead of an order as that would have enabled us to table amendments. I noted that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) insisted on referring to the order as a Bill.
I envisage problems with the increased licence fee and with the moneys going to the district councils. I am delighted that the middle man, so to speak, has been cut out and that the money will go straight to the councils, but there appears to be no duty on local authorities to spend the money on dog control and dog wardens. It is conceivable that local authorities will be tempted to shortcut or under-play the provisions of the order and not to use the moneys in the way intended. In that sense, I am sorry that there is not to be a dog fund. I should not object to there being one for each local authority instead of a central fund. It is a pity that the moneys will not be earmarked for the purpose of controlling dogs.
Enforcement is all important. Detailed work has been undertaken on controlling dogs and for the institution of dog wardens by a committee which has a rather cumbersome name. Its title is the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, of which I have the honour to be the vice-chairman. It comprises not only animal welfare organisations but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other bodies that are concerned about animals—dogs especially—and the problems that they can cause. Over the years it has done a great deal of work. The working party report to which my hon. Friend referred, which appeared in 1976, largely mirrored the report of JACOPIS, which appeared the year before. I think that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The report contained a complete network of the ideas that JACOPIS wanted to put forward and to be accepted, many of which the Minister has said he will be introducing through the order, including identity tags, which are important in enforcement.
It is extremely important that a dog warden scheme should be carefully formulated by well-trained dog wardens, with such provisions as identity tags closely allied to it. I trust that the dog wardens will have the power to ask people who have dogs that are not, apparently, licensed for their name and address and to follow it up. I am not sure from the order whether that is the position. It is vital that dog wardens should be able to pursue people who apparently have unlicensed dogs. That is a key point.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady has mentioned the identification of dogs. That subject was raised in Committee. If all dogs had to be tattooed, there would be no possibility of concealing the dog's original owner. Would not that be an improvement on a dog carrying a disc that could be removed?

Miss Fookes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I was stating the views of the committee with which I am associated. Tattooing is a more controversial means of identification as some people dislike it, but it is one to which I am attracted because it has considerable merit. Public opinion will have to be educated in that direction.

Meanwhile, a proper identity tag would go a long way towards dealing with the problem, although I accept that it would not necessarily be completely successful. That would be much better than the present position, especially if the tag was brightly coloured and could be changed from year to year. It would then be possible to see at a glance not only whether the dog had been licensed but whether it had a current licence. I do not wish to dwell on that subject for too long because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, it is a point well worth getting right, having been carefully thought out.

Mr. Adam Butler: My hon. Friend's vast experience and the time that she has devoted to these matters necessitate listening to her. She may well be on to a good point about discs and that should be followed up. The Government have discussed possibilities along those lines. My reason for intervening in her speech is that she will find in article 41 of the order the answer to her question. An officer may request the name and address of any person who appears to have charge or actually has charge of a dog.

Miss Fookes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Justifiable fear has been expressed that dog wardens might have to learn on the job and thus make many mistakes en route. I trust that that will not be the case. The Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society has given seminars in this country for those engaged in dog warden services or who are likely to be so. Training sessions have been given and it has produced a training handbook, a copy of which I have obtained. It is a splendid handbook in loose-leaf form which deals with all kinds of matter which would be useful to a dog warden, including such topics as the type of equipment needed to catch dogs, how it might be used and its advantages and disadvantages. There is already a great deal of expertise, and I am sure that that organisation would be only too happy to hold seminars and training sessions in Northern Ireland once the order is enacted. I hope that I can talk to the Minister about that after the debate.
My next point has already been dealt with, so I shall be brief. I do not accept the suggestion that all is well when a dog is destroyed because someone has been attacked, or is apprehensive of being attacked. Only yesterday, the all-party mental health group held a meeting at which a very distinguished professor spoke about phobias and how they could be cured. He said that one phobia affecting many people was the irrational fear of a dog or cat. Someone with such a phobia might think that a dog was about to attack him. It might not be the case, but the person's fear would be real. The wording of the order cannot be as loosely interpreted as my hon. Friend the Minister would have us believe. Indeed, it is exceedingly specific and leaves no room for discretion.
Someone who was attacked by a dog might have provoked it in the first place. Some people, particularly youngsters, will tease animals and enjoy working them up into a frenzy until they attack. If that were the case, what would the legal position be? The person involved might have been attacked by the dog, but perhaps brought it on himself by his behaviour. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that point, because it is worrying. Indeed, that is one of the matters that particularly worried the British Small Animals Veterinary Association. I had a meeting with Mr. Thompson, its president, only recently


and he pinpointed that as a major anxiety. He is a Northern Ireland veterinary surgeon, practising there, so he is well aware of the problems that could arise.
The period for which a dog is detained before it can be destroyed is being reduced from seven to five days. It can be argued that an owner who wants his dog back will take steps to that end within five days, but it still seems a rather short time and I cannot see the objection to having the period of seven rather than five days. Indeed, the British Small Animals Veterinary Association did a survey and found that many dogs in the main centres of the United Kingdom were retrieved in those last days. Under this legislation they would have been destroyed by then. Therefore, I hope that that point will be considered in any review of the legislation. I hope that there will be such a review after 12 months or two years so that we can see the effect of the order.
Although I have, in a sense, given the order a qualified welcome, it goes considerably further than any other legislation for the United Kingdom. Therefore, I welcome it as a big step in the right direction, even if it does not go as far as I would wish. Finally, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to impress on fellow Ministers the urgent need to introduce such legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole. All organisations concerned with animal welfare feel strongly that that should be so. This issue has brought together not only those who care for dogs, but also those who do not care for them, and that is unusual. I hope that the order will be accepted.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I almost hesitate to speak after the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) who speaks with such obvious knowledge of the subject. I had not intended to speak with such seriousness on the matter and I hope that she will forgive me for the way in which I intend to approach the order.
When we discussed the order in Committee, although we approached it from different angles, we agreed that it was not entirely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I recognise that there is a problem in the rural communities where the dog population is savaging sheep. We do not have that problem in Belfast. Although I recognise that problem from what I hear from representatives of the agricultural community, in Belfast I have never seen such a dog problem as would warrant this legislation.
I think that, in the dying weeks of this Parliament, the Government have seen fit to introduce another in the long litany of coercion measures that have been aimed for many centuries at the people in Ireland, but this time the legislation is aimed at a most vulnerable section of the population in Northern Ireland—the dog section. There are people in Northern Ireland — they include dog owners—who are worried about the effects of the order. If the dogs knew what it contained, they would be even more worried.
Many of the articles, especially articles 22 to 24, will be utterly unenforceable in the area that I represent and know so well. For however long we stay here and discuss the order seriously, it will be regarded as nonsensical in some parts of Belfast. I think, in particular, of several estates that have been mentioned many times in other respects — Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge, New Barnsley, Divis Tower, New Lodge Road, Ardoyne, and Glencairn.

In each and every one of those estates it will be impossible for a dog warden, dog catcher or whatever fancy title he may be given, to apprehend what he regards as stray dogs.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that animals also have rights. I should like to take up that point in a little detail. Article 23 states that a dog warden can go anywhere in Northern Ireland—I have already said that that is impossible—after what he regards as a stray dog. Article 23 gives him authority to capture such a dog and take it to some place which is known as a pound. We already know in Northern Ireland that under section 12 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 a person can be arrested and detained on suspicion of being a terrorist. Under Article 23 of this order, a dog can be arrested, detained and executed on suspicion of being a stray. If dogs have rights, not much consideration appears to have been given to them.
I shall carry that example a little further. A Catholic dog on the estate of Ballymurphy and a Protestant dog on the estate of Glencairn, which is just across the road, are doing no one any harm. They are not eating sheep or barking at soldiers or chasing army vehicles as they normally do on those estates. They are lying there enjoying the summer sunshine, when all of a sudden they look round to find that they are being set upon by this new innovation— the dog warden or dog snatcher. He has a net, or ropes., or some other paraphernalia to help him to capture those poor, inoffensive dogs.
The dog warden then takes the dogs to the pound. I hope that the Minister can explain the pound in more detail. Is it the equivalent of a dogs' Long Kesh? Those dogs have commited no offence. When they are taken into this dogs' Long Kesh, will they be given cellular accommodation, or will they be put into the pound? As the hon. Member for Kemptowrt asked, will Catholic dogs and Protestant dogs be put into the same compound? With the highly dangerous state of tension in Northern Ireland, there could be serious objections to dogs from those two estates being put together. I am sure that the eagle eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will have detected the probably sinister motivation behind putting dogs together, because if that were allowed to continue we may reach a stage in Northern Ireland where we have canine ecumenism, and there is no saying where that trend could end.

Mr. Adam Butler: I did not wish to intervene while the hon. Gentleman was in full flood, but he has already spoilt his argument, because the example that he gave us was of a happy relationship between a Protestant dog and a Catholic dog who were lying in the sun together. Why should they be segregated in the pound?

Mr. Fitt: They were not lying in the sun together. Ballymurphy is on one side of the road and Glencairn on the other. A Protestant dog would not dare go into Ballymurphy, and the same is true of a Catholic dog and the Glencairn estate. The dogs were lying quite happily in their own estates. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will agree that there was serious trouble in Northern Ireland when prisoners with different political allegiances were put together in the compound at Long Kesh.
The dogs would be justified in feeling incensed at being put in the pound, because they would have committed no offence, but what will happen if they start to foul their cells? Will they lose remission? I doubt whether remission


will have a great effect on the dogs. All those matters will create problems, because, as many hon. Members have said, Northern Ireland is a place apart.
The most important matter of all is whether male dogs and female dogs will be allowed to live together in the compounds. If that happens, there is the danger that we may be in the process of breeding a new generation of dogs that will have absolutely no respect for law and order and will harass foot patrols if they are ever freed.
That was from the dog's point of view, but the dog warden is a more serious problem. How will he be recognised?

Mr. Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman see any serious implications if a Catholic dog were to mate with a Protestant dog?

Mr. Fitt: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Antrim, North would put down a motion praying that the order be annulled.
However, to be totally serious — I hope that the House does not believe that I have been less than serious in what I have said up to now—will the dog warden or the dog snatcher have a uniform? If he enters an estate such as those that I have mentioned, he will not have a uniform on when he comes out. Will he have a badge? I think the hon. Member for Drake said that a dog warden would be entitled to walk up to someone anywhere and ask for his name and address. The army and the police are afraid to do that unless they have guns. Many people who have refused to give their address have finished up in Castlereagh interrogation centre. It is not as easy as it might seem. We are talking, not about an English city, but about Northern Ireland.
It may be that a dog handler will apprehend or lift a dog in Coleraine, Bellaghy or Downpatrick, but not one dog will be lifted from the other areas that I have mentioned. Indeed, Belfast bookmakers—who are no fools when it comes to taking bets—are already laying long odds on the first dog to be apprehended under this legislation. They are laying even longer odds on the second dog to be apprehended under this legislation. There is no possibility that this legislation can be enforced.
Why initiate legislation which is completely unenforceable and which will eventually bring the whole concept of the order into disrepute? How many dog wardens will the Belfast city council need to employ to apprehend all the so-called stray dogs, which, the Minister seemed to imply, were to be found mostly on the working-class estates, both Catholic and Protestant, whereas there are not so many stray dogs in the Upper Malone road areas of Belfast?
If the Minister is right in saying that the problems exist on those estates, I can tell him now that he will find such actions impossible. If one wants to be a little humorous about it, to have a Protestant dog catcher going into an estate and arresting a Catholic dog—and vice versa—is just unimaginable. It just would not happen. Although I may say that in a frivolous way, there are serious connotations. We all know how hated the traffic warden is. I notice that even the Tories do not like them. The same would apply to dog wardens in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Drake mentioned dogs fouling the streets. I have a small flat in London, and the streets in Ballymurphy are not half as foul as the streets one or two minutes walk away from the House. If Parliament

cannot legislate for an area within walking distance of the House, how does it propose to legislate for Northern Ireland?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland have raised serious objections to the higher licence fee that is to be charged in Northern Ireland — £5 compared with 37½p elsewhere. Great exception will be taken to that. The people of Northern Ireland are perfectly entitled to resent being asked to pay what I regard as an exorbitant fee.
There are many families on the working-class estates where there is high unemployment to whom a dog is a comfort. I have yet to see a family from any estate in west or north Belfast — or in Belfast for that matter —deliberately or even accidentally ill-treating a dog. I do not say that people in Northern Ireland are more kind to dogs than people on this side of the water, but I have yet to see a family in Northern Ireland deliberately ill-treating a dog.
Many of those families will not have £5 for the licence. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was right to say that a family which could not find the £5 might be tempted to drive into the country to lose the dog. That would defeat the object of the order. There will always be dogs. Rather than see a dog ill-treated because its owners cannot afford to pay £5 for its licence, I agree with my right hon. Friend that some other means should be found on a national basis that would not rob or drain dry the Exchequer.
I must tell the Minister of State that there will be bitter resentment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that not only would the £5 fee be imposed or inflicted on Northern Ireland—the tone of his voice is all important in this matter—but that he would not introduce similar legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. If people in Northern Ireland were to listen tonight to "Today in Parliament" or tomorrow in "Yesterday in Parliament" and heard the Minister's tone of voice in saying so vehemently that similar legislation would not be introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, they would ask "Why?" My right hon. Friend was right to say that there is a dog problem in Britain as well. If, as it appears, a different approach is made in Northern Ireland, resentment is bound to be caused.
I jocularly said earlier that we had civil rights marches in Northern Ireland for less reason. I remember those civil rights marches very well. In the late 1960s the people felt that they were being treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom over the franchise and the allocation of houses. From a series of small items began the big demonstrations in Northern Ireland. I am prepared to admit that people took part in those demonstrations organised by the civil rights movement to exploit those legitimate grievances.
I do not know the extent of the problem in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. I am not aware of a problem in the city of Belfast. I say clearly to the Minister that the Government will not be able to enforce this order in the estates that I have mentioned. If an individual from a local authority, regardless of whether he is a dog warden and has a pass or authority, attempts to go into one of those estates, he will be a laughing stock. As I said, the bookmakers in Belfast are laying long odds on the first dog to be caught and even longer odds on the second. I do not believe that any dogs will be caught under this legislation.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) when he asks "Why in Northern Ireland? Why not in the rest of the United Kingdom?" My hon. Friend the Minister said that there are special problems in Northern Ireland, but the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, "Walk down a pavement in London and see what you see". I have been to Northern Ireland on two or three occasions. I cannot ever recollect seeing as much filth and dirt on the pavements of Northern Ireland as we see in our own capital city. I shall not take up the hon. Gentleman's remarks about traffic wardens because I hope very much that the traffic wardens, in Northampton anyhow, are all good Conservatives.

Mr. Concannon: How many parking tickets has the hon. Gentleman had?

Mr. Marlow: I require notice of that question.
I am sorry that so few right hon. and hon. Members are present. This is a controversial measure and, as with most controversial measures, I believe that many of my colleagues, for very good reasons, like to keep their heads down.
I have a feeling that in politics one can easily make enemies but that it is difficult to make friends, and on this issue it is very easy indeed to make enemies. If one wants to do something to control dogs one must confront the serried ranks of an organisation known as Pro-Dogs. We talked earlier about threats made by Miss Ruth Hall to hon. Members if they took a particular course of action. I assure the House that the threats of Miss Hall are as a mild rebuke compared with the pre-emptive nuclear strike that would be offered by Pro-Dogs to any hon. Members who might cause offence in any way.
On the other hand, if the Government or hon. Members said that they were not prepared to do anything about dog nuisance, there are groups of young mums and elderly people who are quite properly concerned about the dog nuisance and who would feel that the Government were funking the issue. It is therefore a controversial measure and obviously one must be discreet and careful.
As I say, I welcome the measure in general, but why Northern Ireland alone? Why not clean up our own pavements, by which I mean the pavements of the rest of the United Kingdom? Why do we not protect elderly people on the mainland from perhaps being attacked, savaged or frightened by stray dogs? Are they no more at risk than people in Northern Ireland? Although the Minister denied it, in the way Governments do—they say it is for Northen Ireland only and will not come to the mainland, but Governments are bound to do that until they change their mind and bring another measure forward—is Northern Ireland in some way being used as a testing ground, a probing area, by the measure? If so, I would expect right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland to have some views on the subject.
Attitudes change. I remember years ago — I have never been a smoker and I do not like smoking—how, if one did not want people to smoke in one's house, one did not have ashtrays in evidence. If one did not want people to smoke in the cinema or theatre, or in a motor car, people would look as though there was something strange about one, as if one was odd or anti-social. Everybody

seemed to smoke and expected everybody else to smoke. People who did not like smoke in their eyes were looked on as being strange.
It has until recently been the same with dogs. The dog is man's best friend, but in some areas dogs are becoming public enemy number one. The young mother who wants to take her child for a walk in the park, or the play area in the park, finds a filthy mess all over the place and must clean the child when she gets home. The dog is her public enemy number one. Think of the elderly person who, on going shopping, finds a strange dog romping around in the shopping areas and who is frightened, perhaps bowled over, by it. That is that person's public enemy number one.
Think what it must be like to be blind in central London with all the filth on our pavements. In the street, one does not know what one will walk in; and if one walks in it, think of the business of having to clean it off one's clothes and footwear, especially if one is blind. The dog has not had its day, but I hope that in Northern Ireland at least the filthy dog will have had its day. That is the dog nuisance —fouling pavements, parks and play areas where people want to play rugby, soccer or any other game.
We have heard about the harrying problem of livestock worrying and of sheep being attacked. If one sees what happens to a sheep that is savaged by a dog, or if one talks to someone who has seen it, it is a very disturbing experience indeed. The Minister spoke about the problem of injuries and said that 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were treated in hospital. If the rate is the same in the rest of the United Kingdom— I suspect that it is; if one contacts one's local hospital one finds that many injuries are caused by dogs—that represents 60,000 people. It means that the equivalent of 100 people each year in every constituency have been savaged by dogs to the extent that they must go to hospital for treatment. That is a large number of people. Deaths arise from road accidents caused by dogs. There may not be many of them, but they happen and we should be concerned about them.
More recently, a lot of research has been done on the very real problem of disease. I shall mention simply the problem of toxicara canis, a worm which a dog passes which a human, quite often a child, can pick up. The worm can migrate through the body. It can do damage to various systems within the body and, in particular, it can cause blindness. As a result of the work that has been done by Professor Woodruff recently at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, it has been established that at least 50 people each year suffer partial loss of the sight of one eye as a result of this menace.
Most dogs and most dog owners are exemplary. Most dogs are treasured members of the family, well looked after and virtuous within society and perform a great service. My hon. Friend the Minister is proposing by this measure to raise a licence fee of £5 per annum in Northern Ireland. One has to say to the dog-owning public in Northern Ireland that that money will be well spent. It will be well spent on discouraging people from having dogs that they will not look after. It will cut back the number of stray dogs——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman said just now "£5 per annum." There is nothing in the order which says that ii is to be £5 per annum. It is to be £5 for
such period as may be prescribed.


The prescribed period is not being written into the order, nor has it, so far as I know, been mentioned by the Government at any time during the debate. When regulations are made which prescribe that time, they will not, if we are still operating under the 1974 Act, come before the House.

Mr. Marlow: I stand corrected by the right hon. Gentleman. The licence at the moment, as I understand it, is an annual licence. I should have thought that most people would expect that the £5 licence would last for a year. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I have no doubt that he will put the right hon. Gentleman right about this.
I am pleased also that in this measure the owners of blind dogs will not have to pay a licence fee for their dogs and that people over 65, for many of whom a dog is valuable, a friend, and protection in the house, will have a rate half that that anyone else will pay.
I notice that farmers who do not bury the carcases of their livestock will be liable to a fine of £200. I wonder whether this is necessary, or is it just a mean quid pro quo so that the farmers might be got at as well as being helped? Any farmer looks after his livestock. No farmer wants to have dead livestock lying around, but sometimes it takes time dispose of it and it cannot always be done immediately.
I am very pleased to see that the order is enlisting public support, in that if there is a stray dog in the neighbourhood an ordinary member of the public will be enabled to take possession of that dog and within 24 hours call the police or the local authority to take it away.
I am very pleased to see that there are realistic penalties. The owner or the keeper of a dog that is not licensed will be liable to a fine of £200, which is a significant amount of money. I believe that on the mainland there are almost as many unlicensed dogs as there are licensed dogs. I am sure that this level of penalty will be a strong encouragement to the licensing of dogs in the future.
The fine for allowing a dog to stray can also be up to £200. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) suggested that it may be better to have a system of tattoo rather than a system of ear tag. One very good reason for a system of tattoo is that many people, when they no longer have use for a dog, put it in the back of a car, drive it out to the country and let it go. If they do that and do not want to be found out and do not want to be fined, all they will do is clip off the tag in the dog's ear and they will never be traced. Simply another stray dog will have to be taken into the system and dealt with. If the dog were tattooed, people who behaved in that particularly unpleasant and cruel manner would still be liable, would be found and could be fined.
I am pleased to see, too, that there is the possibility of on-the-spot fines, at the relatively low sum of £10, for dogs found fouling the pavements. There is a lot of dog nuisance. Members of the public can identify where a dog has committed an offence and has fouled a pavement, and they get in touch with the local authority, but such is the bureaucratic burden, the length of time it takes to get the matter to court and the reluctance of witnesses to come forward that almost inevitably nothing is done. Therefore, members of the public who would like to take a hand in

discouraging this problem are discouraged from doing so. The ability of the dog warden to impose an on-the-spot fine will have an immediate and real impact on this very unpleasant problem of dogs fouling the pavements.
This is a positive measure and a very strong one. I ask my hon. Friend to speak to his right hon. and hon. Friends with a view to getting a similar measure implemented on the mainland as quickly as possible.

Mr. Adam Butler: I should, perhaps, have declared my own interest before introducing this order. I think that the House knows, because I declare it, that I am a farmer and therefore have an interest from that point of view. I am not one who exhibits any pathological hatred of dogs. It has been suggested—it was not a personal attack—that there might have been some who drafted this operating from such an approach. I have almost lost count of the number of dogs which we have in our house from time to time, but at the moment it is reduced to three. I think that I can be described as a dog lover but a very responsible dog lover.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—who I hope will rejoin us—may have some knowledge about the date of the next election which I do not. He started his remarks by saying that it was quite wrong for the Government to introduce this measure in the dying weeks of this Parliament. I have to say to him that this measure was introduced closer to the beginning of this Parliament than to the end, because it was in the early days of 1980 — over three years ago — that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said that legislation would be introduced, and I think that he gave some general outline of it.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—who is, sadly, not here at the moment—made an important contribution to our debate. He said that this order was typical of the evils of direct rule, as he described it, implying that if there had been a Committee stage the order might have been in a very much better state than he claims it is. Let me remind him that this order has gone through a very lengthy consultative process indeed. I admit that when I first saw it I was apprehensive about it because it was introducing new powers; it was bringing into one part of the United Kingdom something that many people had indicated that they would not wish to see elsewhere.
I looked at the order very closely indeed. I have consulted widely, and my officials have consulted widely. As far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, we had the Northern Ireland Committee debate, which was extremely helpful and in which amendments were made. As far as consideration by the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people as elected to the Assembly is concerned, they spent some few hours debating this matter. This is important, because they represent their constituents in the Assembly, just as hon. Members from Northern Ireland represent their constituents here.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that they have been elected, as he has been elected—admittedly by proportional representation and not by the first-past-the-post system—and more recently than he has. He cannot, therefore, say that they are not representative of their constituents.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: They are not representative as we are, because we are representative in a House to which the Government are responsible. No one is responsible to them; and they are responsible for nothing.

Mr. Butler: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that they are just as representative. It is a question of what they can do once they reach that Assembly, compared with what the right hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends and other Northern Ireland Members can do in this place. One cannot argue that they are not as representative of people's viewpoints. They are as capable as the right hon. Gentleman is of expressing a viewpoint about the constituents' interests that they represent. They did so and drew attention to some small points in the order of which they were critical. Perhaps some wished to amend some points that some wished to retain, as we have seen tonight, but generally they gave the draft order a good welcome.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely with all the consultative process the hon. Gentleman would not equate the Assembly with a parliamentary Committee in which elected Members can put forward amendments and have them tested in the House by vote.

Mr. Butler: I am a Member of the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the preferable way to go about bringing forward legislation. Therefore, it would be preferable, other things being equal, that this should be done. As it is, we have a system arising out of direct rule and have to meet the circumstances as best we can. In consequence of the different approach to legislation, we have a very much longer and much more thorough consultative process outside Parliament to try to remedy the situation. However, there is an opportunity under the recent Assembly legislation for the Assembly to take on such a role, but that is a matter for debate on another day.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West amused us, got us interested, and then came to his serious points. I think that some of the dogs in Northern Ireland have a great deal more sense than one or two people who will not apparently ever engage in consultations in any way with somebody from another community. I do not believe that the dogs to which he referred stop at the boundaries of Ballymurphy or anywhere else. They trespass across the boundaries that their human owners sometimes will not move across. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from that.
The hon. Gentleman came to the serious point about how the dogs would be treated in the pound. They will be looked after. They will be segregated individually. There are requirements in the order about care, the provision of veterinary care and so on.
This is a small but important point. One or two hon. Members referred to the number of days for which a dog could be impounded. The five-day limit is a minimum period before which it will be permissible for further action to be taken. Secondly, that was the period of time recommended by the working party on dogs. Thirdly, I believe that that time is long enough for any responsible owner to discover that his dog is missing. Even if it is a habitual strayer or one of the hon. Member for Belfast, West's dogs that is always on the prowl, within a day or two at the most he will realise that it has disappeared from the home and is not likely to come back, so he will get in touch with the pound. Therefore, the minimum period of five days is not wrong.
Four main points were raised in the debate. First, hon. Members asked why the legislation should not include Great Britain. As I made clear, I was repeating what had been said in the House previously by Ministers, namely, that there are no plans to introduce the legislation. One must be careful because there is already legislation applying here and the order brings the situation in Northern Ireland into line.
When people ask about this what they are really referring to is the imposition of a mandatory scheme of dog control and an increase in the licence fee. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was debating with us, because she has campaigned for a long time towards this end. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made his position clear. If anybody came near to the description of someone having a pathological dislike of dogs, it might be him. I must leave that to be settled outside the Chamber between my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
The general position in Northern Ireland is radically different, whether we are talking about attacks on livestock, attacks on human beings or the general nuisance of the sort that I described. The difference was recognised by the independent working party.
As to the reason why the legislation should not be introduced in Great Britain, a significant number of voluntary schemes are operated by councils under the Local Government Act 1972. There are byelaws in respect of the fouling of pavements and the like operated by councils which have byelaw making powers, subject to approval by the Home Secretary. I would have thought that that was the right way to go about it in Great Britain; because the situation differs very much between one area and another.
In Northern Ireland we are talking about an area with a population comparable to a large county in England, with Belfast being comparable in size perhaps to Leicester. Whereas it might have been possible to introduce voluntary schemes, it is necessary in the circumstance of Northern Ireland that no one council should refuse to operate a scheme. Therefore, that is one reason for introducing a mandatory approach.
The second main point raised was about charging. Hon. Members have agreed that it is an excellent scheme, but they ask that the charge should not be put on dog owners. I should not like to suggest that since we are getting near election time there was any thought about effects on the electoral prospects. Nobody thinks that £5 for a dog licence will be immensely popular or vote winning, but surely that is not the point at issue. We are talking only of about 10p a week. As for food, a dog with the voracious appetite of the West Highland terrier of my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown would doubtless eat much more than most of his size, but we are talking about a minimum of 50p up to perhaps £2 a week for food. In that circumstance, I do not think that lop will have the effect that some hon. Members have suggested.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North reminded us, the £5 charge will have the important effect of deterring the impulse buyer and making people think twice about whether they really want a dog and are prepared to take the trouble that dog ownership assuredly requires. I should have thought that that would appeal especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Drake, who


is concerned, as I hope that we all are, about the welfare of dogs. There is no question but that if one has to pay for something one is likely to take better care of it than if it costs little or nothing.
I certainly believe that the cost of the schemes should be shared, or perhaps eventually be borne entirely by the dog owner. In the first instance, it should certainly be shared between the dog owner and the ratepayer. It would be quite wrong to put the whole charge on the ratepayer in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Patently, the beneficiary from dog ownership is the person who owns the dog. There is also a benefit to the community from the scheme in terms of cleaner streets, reduction of nuisance, and so on. To that extent, the whole community will benefit, but the owner of the dog benefits from ownership so it is not unreasonable that the cost should be shared, and perhaps eventually be borne entirely by the dog owner.
Will the charges have to go up? I do not know. What will be the size of the ratepayers' contribution? I do not know. In the first instance, it is for the local council to decide on the kind of scheme that it wishes to operate and the extent of the need in the area. It must decide whether to go in for some gold-plated operation with magnificent new pounds or whether to use the USPCA for the purposes of impounding, and so on. It is, therefore, very difficult to say how much of the initial cost will fall on the ratepayer, but if the operation is successful the cost should reduce in relative terms. The work that needs to be done should be completed in comparatively few years. Thereafter, one hopes, the situation that has led to the order will be under control and the work required to be done by council officers will be relatively limited.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister clarify the point that was raised earlier? Will the £5 be an annual fee?

Mr. Butler: I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South that it will be an annual fee and not be subject to change during the course of a year. That would clearly be iniquitous as it would be a 12-month licence.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that case, why does the order not say so?

Mr. Butler: I am looking for the article that covers this.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is article 6(3).

Mr. Butler: It might have been clearer to put it in the legislation, but if a Minister says from the Dispatch Box that it will be an annual licence I understand that that is sufficient. As dog licences and virtually all other licences run for one year, I hope that that is sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I assure the Minister that I am not at all impugning his veracity, his honour or anything else of that kind, but if it is intended to be an annual licence, as he assures us that it is, and if the burden of the licence is proportionate not only to the sum but to the period for which it is applicable, surely that is something that ought to have been put on the face of the order and not left to be prescribed by an instrument that will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny at all.

Mr. Butler: I had hoped that there was no reason for confusion on this issue. The term is not set out in the

proposed order, but neither is the rate that will apply for the licence in, for example, 10 years' time. It is not unusual for these matters to be changed or to be prescribed in subordinate legislation. As one would expect, there will be an annual licence fee.
I accept that if the schemes are not operated effectively they will not do the job that is intended for them. However, we must consider the penalties that will apply and the licence fee itself, including the way in which it will operate to encourage greater responsibility. We have to judge whether the threat of penalties will be effective, and I believe that the maximum figures in the order will have a deterrent effect.
Will the officers of the councils be able to carry out their work? The hon. Member for Belfast, West repeated some of the remarks that he made in Committee. I think that I said to him in Committee that, if what he said was true, it was a matter for regret. He said that in certain areas of the Province it might be more difficult for the officers to operate the schemes. If that is so, I do not believe that it is an argument for not introducing legislation to cover the majority of the Province. Therefore, I see no reason why the operation of the scheme should fail merely because there is doubt about its effectiveness in one or two areas.
I agree with the comments that were made by a number of hon. Members about training. It must be self-evident that a properly trained force will do the job better than one that has received insufficient training. I have read the advice which has been set out by JACOPIS to which my hon. Friend the Member for Drake referred. I welcome the suggestion that JACOPIS should hold seminars in Northern Ireland and that use should be made of them. It seems self-evident that the scheme has to work if it is to be effective, and it is my judgment that the contents of the order, in so far as they affect the operation of the dog control schemes, will bring that about.
The last issue of general importance was that of attack and the definition, which includes apprehension by a person. The issue can be treated frivolously, but it is not a frivolous subject. We are concerned to stop or, as far as possible, greatly to reduce the number of attacks on people. I do not want to lay down whether a bite is an attack. Perhaps in some circumstances it is not. The injuries that are sustained by a few thousand people who appear in hospital for treatment every year may not have been attacks as defined in the order.
Nevertheless, it is certain that many people will have been attacked. The Government cannot tolerate that. That state of affairs must be brought to an end. Therefore, there must be clear definitions in the legislation. However clear the legislation is, there will always be some room for doubt. Perhaps in the light of experience there will be room for improvement in the wording. I was most impressed by the constructive criticism that the Government received on the Bill from the British Veterinary Association, a body that has the greatest reputation and should be listened to.
Reference has been made to the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, which is part of the BVA. The Government are reminded in briefing from the BVA that the British Small Animal Veterinary Association is the largest specialist division of the BVA. The briefing states that because the BVA covers all the United Kingdom—it has a territorial division in the form of the Northern Ireland Veterinary Association—and because it draws on


the experience of the Small Animal Veterinary Association, it is able to comment authoritatively on the draft. I accept that. That association raises questions that have been stated by several hon. Members in this debate. That factor encourages me to refer to the briefing that I have been supplied with. The BVA supports the general principle of the draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order and it wishes to see it approved. The BVA asks for monitoring of the application of articles 2(2) and 33, which deal with attack.
I have given an assurance, and I do so again, that the Government must see how the legislation works in practice. I am not prepared, as was suggested, to move on a step by step basis and not introduce one part of the order until the Government know how another part operates, because the measures hang together, especially in respect of the dog control systems. I am not prepared to make a commitment to come back to the House in a year's time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Drake suggested. Means are available to any hon. Member to question Ministers or to raise the matter on the Floor of the Chamber. The articles must be monitored to judge their effectiveness. Powers are available to the Northern Ireland Department that can be introduced by subordinate legislation. 1f the principal legislation needs changing in the light of experience, that can be done. I am glad that a body as prestigious as the BVA wishes to see the article approved. It has been said that we are moving into unknown territory. If that was a reference to the entire order, that is not correct because of its consolidation aspects. The Government are bringing into line the Northern Ireland legislation. If that is right, it serves to underline what I said about the dog control procedures.
I trust that, with those explanations and that final assurance, the House will approve this draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved
That the draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

Pastoral Measure

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Pastoral Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): It might be helpful if I were to advise the House on the scope of the debate. This measure consolidates two other measures and related enactments with some minor improvements and corrections, as set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report, House of Commons Paper 283 of 1982–83. Debate should be confined, therefore, to the question whether the law should be consolidated or left expressed in a number of different measures. Reference may also be made to the improvements and corrections set out in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Sir William van Straubenzee: In view of the ruling that you have just very helpfully given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak to the motion briefly, because, as you have said, this is essentially a consolidation measure. However, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I know that only very binding public commitments have led to the absence of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) from this debate. He is always assiduous in his attendance and watchfulness over Church legislation on behalf of the Opposition, but I know that his place is very ably taken by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who combines a quiet approach with deadly interrogation. I look forward with no pleasure whatever to the questions he may want to ask me.
As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this measure consolidates the Pastoral Measure 1968, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1982, and four other statutory provisions that are identified in schedule 9. Other measures are also mentioned there, which hake been wholly repealed. The consolidation was set in hand largely at the suggestion of the Ecclesiastical Committee. It was felt to be for the general convenience of practitioners both at the centre and in the dioceses. The House is always conscious of legislating for people who have to follow the law, whatever it may be. Therefore, it is both helpful and convenient that it should be set out under one cover.
Within the provisions of our consolidation procedures there are certain minor amendments. I do not need to weary the House with them, but they are set out—as hon. Members will know—and clearly explained in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Although I shall do my best to answer any question on them, I hope that it will not be necessary to go through them in detail. In the past the House has approved both measures upon which the consolidation is based, and I hope that it will feel it proper to allow the matter to proceed, as recommended by the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Mr. Frank Field: I am here this evening to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White). When the measure came before the Ecclesiastical Committee, I had nothing to say and, despite the eloquence with which the hon.


Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) moved the measure, I still have nothing of substance to add to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pastoral Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This is the third in a series of miscellaneous provisions measures which are for the convenience of both Church and state in that they bring together detailed but important amendments in one small Measure. It saves asking the House to approve matters separately, as has happened in times gone by.
Consistent with my duty to the House, I can commend this Measure comparatively briefly. I do not wish to give the appearance of treating the House in a cavalier fashion. That is the last thing that I would wish. Clause 12 is intriguing. It emanated from the diocese of Lichfield. It vests a house and adjoining muniment room in the cathedral close in the Lichfield diocesan board of finance. By a private Act of 1796 the property had been vested in the Registrar of the diocese and his successors for ever. This Measure provides for the property to be vested in the Lichfield diocesan board of finance on the vacation of office of the present registrar of the diocese.
Great care was taken to ensure that all interested parties in the diocese agreed to the proposal. Clause 1 amends the New Parishes Measure 1943, which empowers the Church Commissioners to acquire land or buildings for use as a church hall or dual-purpose building. The subsections go into greater detail, which I shall do my best to explain if I am asked to do so.
Clause 2 inserts a new subsection in the 1943 Measure to give a bishop the power to exercise certain powers if the benefice is vacant. I am willing to explain it if that would be of assistance.

Mr. Frank Field: Can the hon. Gentleman briefly explain what powers are to be exercised by the bishop?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Section 14 of the 1943 Measure deals with the power of corporations, and so on, to give or grant land for sites of churches and so on. That is the limited operation to which we are addressing ourselves. As the law stands, if there is a vacancy in the benefice, it is not possible to operate. In several other matters, if there is a vacancy and one proceeds under one of the other Measures, it is possible for the legal machinery to operate. That is not possible in this case at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has asked me why. The answer is probably because of an oversight. That means that when there is a vacancy in a benefice, it is possible for the conveyancing to proceed. It has been borne out by experience that delay and difficulty have been to the detriment of the Church's work and the people in a parish.

Mr. Field: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, apart from there not being an incumbent, exactly the same procedures would be gone through, with the bishop operating as if the incumbent were there?

Sir William van Straubenzee: It has to be operated carefully. If such a matter arises during a vacancy in a benefice, it can be dealt with—I said it could not, but I


must correct myself — but only by a complicated conveyancing procedure. Section 14 of the parent Measure sets out the conveyancing procedures, which are very much encompassed about. Nothing much happens in the Church of England without its being encompassed about.

Mr. Field: Perhaps I could put my question rather more crudely. I want an assurance that if there is a vacancy the bishop cannot carve up a piece of land quickly in a way that he could not do if there were an incumbent.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I can give that assurance. This is not a sly scheme to give the diocesans a power under which they could act unreasonably.
The Measure to be amended by clause 4 gave the incumbent the power to sell his parsonage, outbuildings and land, but it assumed that they would all be sold together. In modern circumstances, especially at an auction, they are often sold separately. This measure brings the law into line with modern conditions. Clause 5 deals with a section of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 and substitutes for the word "incumbent" the word "minister". That has no sinister connotation, and is designed to include a curate in charge. As the House knows, the Church often has to deal with such an occurrence.
Clause 7 amends the Bishops (Retirement) Measure 1951 in that it no longer refers to the diocesan bishop commissioning a suffragan bishop, because that phrase is no longer used.
Clause 8 deals with the discharge of the functions of a diocesan bishop by way of dedication but limits it to a six-month period, and is designed for circumstances in which no other bishop is available to whom to delegate in an emergency. One has in mind a diocesan who contemplates having to undergo medical treatment and there is no other episcopal person available. However, it is a limited function.
Clause 9 provides for the discharge of functions of archdeacon where the office is vacant. Clause 11 is important because it deals with the constitution of the appeal tribunal under the Pastoral Measure 1968 and brings in what I hope the House will consider are some modest improvements. It increases the number of clergy from whom the members of the appeal tribunal are chosen. It increases the number of laymen, but states that at least half of the laymen in a panel should be professionally qualified as lawyers. I hope that the House will consider that a proper safeguard in such serious matters.
I hope that I have steered the middle course between boring the House and properly explaining a measure that may be modest in content but is important. I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Empty Local Authority Houses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. John Heddle: I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a subject that is close to the hearts of many of our constituents, particularly those seeking the right to rent a home—the management of empty local authority houses under the rate support grant system.
I have no doubt at all that when my hon. Friend and I attend our weekly advice bureaux tomorrow evening and on Saturday morning several of our constituents will wish to discuss housing matters with us. Some will wish to discuss the right to buy; some will wish to discuss shared ownership; some will wish to discuss the half and half scheme; the improvement for sale scheme; homesteading; and the various other initiatives that the Government have introduced since 3 May 1979.
Others will wish to discuss the national mobility scheme and the tenants transfer scheme. Others will wish to discuss repairs that they consider to be long overdue. A significant number will comprise people who have been on their local authority's housing waiting list for a considerable time and who, in their wisdom, cannot for the life of them understand why the council—whether it be the Lichfield district council, the Tamworth borough council, or the local authorities operating within the constituency that my hon. Friend so assiduously nurses —will not give them the key to a home that has been left empty for so long.
It is to the scandal of empty homes that I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention this evening. According to the annual housing and investment strategy programme for 1982–83, local authorities in England estimated that on 1 April 1981 there were some 97,000 local authority homes which had been lying vacant — wasted, unused, unoccupied—for 12 months or more. On 1 April 1982 that figure had increased to some 100,000 houses. Some —examples of which I know that my hon. Friend will already be aware of—believe it or not, have been left to the ravages of weather and vandals for an unbelievable period of five, 10, 15 or 20 years.
Some of the evidence—I shall not detail it to the House—can be gleaned from an excellent publication entitled "Homes Wasted" by a Mr. Anthony Fletcher. It reveals that in Manchester, not too far from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), at 15 Ladybound lane, a house that is owned by the local authority had been kept vacant for an unbelievable period of 12 years. At 7 and 15 Florence road, London SE14, in the London borough of Lewisham, two properties were bought by the Inner London Education Authority in 1971 for a proposed school extension. No. 7 Florence road has been left vacant for 11 years and No. 15 Florence road has been left vacant for eight years. They were not passed on to the GLC to be used for temporary housing and requests that they be used for short or medium-term lets were refused. Those houses remain unoccupied to this day.
In Tamworth in my constituency, at Glascote road within one mile of the town centre 50 properties were bought by the Tamworth borough council 10 years ago for


the proposed road improvement scheme known as the B5000. Those houses cost the local authority — the ratepayer and the taxpayer—some £350,000. They are now bricked up, derelict, vacant; crying out to be used by families who rightly deserve the right to rent.
How can this situation exist? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that, to people without a home, an empty house is an outrage, particularly if it is owned by a public body that should have let it or used it beneficially in some way. To them, to my hon. Friend's constituents and to mine, this is a scandal. It is a scandal, too, for the taxpayer and the ratepayer who has to pay for this neglect.
The loss of revenue from local authority dwellings amounts to about £35 million a year. The cost of maintaining empty houses is a drain on the public purse; and the cost of boarding up these empty houses, to keep the vandals and the weather at bay, is about £500 to £1,000 a house. It has been known for up to £6,000 of ratepayers and taxpayers money to be spent to rehabilitate some of these properties after vandalism has occurred.
The deterioration of publicly financed assets, the large rent and rate losses, the potential for increased vandalism and theft and the intolerable nuisance caused to law abiding neighbours, are symptoms that highlight the need to keep the number of empty houses to an absolute minimum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
I understand that about 300 local authorities keep the number of their void houses at a low level—under 2 per cent. With them, I have no quarrel at all. Those are prudent local authorities controlled by both main political parties, but it is to more than 50 local authorities, the majority of which, sad though it is to relate to the House, are controlled by the Labour party, which is not represented here tonight, that I am directing my remarks. Keys are transferred from one department to another; they are transferred from in-tray to out-tray and from out-tray to tea-tray. In short, these much needed homes are left empty because of muddle, delay, inertia, secrecy and inefficiency—characteristics that often abound in large bureaucracies.
It will be remembered that, until a year or two ago, many local authorities, statutory undertakings and public bodies had no idea of how much land they owned. The initiative taken by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment in establishing land registers has now brought that imprudence to an end. Vacant land and publicly owned assets are now quite rightly brought under the close scrutiny of the Department of the Environment. How many local authorities have no adequate identification and record system to identify the houses that they own? I submit that, frequently, public authorities, local authorities, statutory undertakings, the Inner London Education Authority, British Rail, and so on, do not even keep adequate records of their properties. At any one time they do not know whether their properties are empty or occupied. They do not know what their short-term or long-term plans may be. It is known that properties literally disappear in the administrative sense. One has only to read Homes Wasted to see that.
I therefore propose to my hon. Friend four points that are designed to bring the efficiency of local council housing departments under closer scrutiny. First, I believe

that every local authority should be required to submit a six-monthly return to the Department of the Environment, identifying the houses within its ownership which have been empty for more than six months and the specific reasons why that council has left those properties empty.
Secondly, the Department should publish statistics concerning empty houses throughout the country obtained from the annual HIP — the housing investment programme returns from local authorities—so that we, as the guardians of the public purse, can identify the culprits of this imprudence.
Thirdly, the Government should place on local authorities and other public bodies a duty to consider shorthold schemes and temporary lettings for all their empty houses which are not let to tenants on housing waiting lists, and to transfer applicants under the national mobility scheme and tenants transfer scheme.
Fourthly, in respect of houses awaiting modernisation and repair—the reason which local authorities give for the majority of houses being left empty for more than six months is that they are awaiting repair, modernisation or improvement—rather than the local authority procrastinating any longer with those houses, it should offer those homes awaiting repair and modernisation to tenants on waiting lists in their existing state on a sort of homesteading for rental basis.
My constituency experience leads me to believe that I may not be far wrong in saying that eight out of 10 families on waiting lists are do-it-yourself experts, just as capable of modernising, improving, rewiring and re-decorating those homes as the council's direct labour organisation would be. Local authorities should invite those applicants to carry out the repairs themselves, perhaps in exchange for a rent-free period, or even provide those eager, anxious families who want the right to rent with the materials to carry out their own repairs, and in exchange for those materials allow them to refurbish the house at a reduced rent for a negotiated period. The advantages to the local authority and those on housing waiting lists—my hon. Friend's constituents and mine—are obvious for all to see.
Local authorities, not unreasonably, resent interference from Whitehall. Those councils which manage their housing stock efficiently and prudently will have nothing to fear from the proposals I am putting to the House tonight. This scheme is directed only at those councils which sit idly by while houses are left to deteriorate and the hopes of families on waiting list become daily more forlorn.
The priority estates project launched by my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues in December 1979 has, without doubt, helped local authorities to tackle the serious problem of difficult to let estates, which affect about one quarter of a million households. But the proposals I am making would significantly reduce the number of not difficult to let estates but individual houses which have not yet attracted a tenant and would help to break down the old attitude that the council knows best. It would also help to break down the intransigent bureaucracies whose attitudes in the past have prevented homes from being created.
The Government have taken several encouraging steps in their four years in office to encourage private owners to bring vacant property back into use. There has been the introduction of the shorthold scheme in the Housing Act 1980 and the removal of disincentives from people


temporarily absent, perhaps on active service overseas or in the Foreign and Commonwealth Service, to let their homes. We have had the encouragement of the North Wiltshire scheme, as it is commonly known, under which local authorities can lease privately rented accommodation for a brief period with a guaranteed right of possession to the owner at the end of that period. There has been the significant and generous contribution made through the department by the Government of improvement, repair and intermediate grants and so on, and the flexibility given to local authorities to guarantee mortgages provided by building societies for lending on older dwellings.
The four suggestions I have made tonight — in particular, the homesteading for rental scheme— must command the respect of even the most critical political scrutineer. Those proposals would significantly help the thousands of families on housing waiting lists who, for one reason or another, cannot and probably for reasons best known to themselves will not ever be able to afford to buy. They rightly deserve the right to rent. I believe that my proposals would give them that right.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): It is customary for my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) to raise relevant issues from his fund of knowledge and with his expertise to put them across. Tonight is no exception. We have, rightly, had the opportunity to hear from him about the problem of void properties, far too many of which are on the books of housing authorities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has not only presented the case which is documented—though I take his point not sufficiently for his case—but has offered, as is relatively unusual in an Adjournment debate, some positive suggestions on how the situation might be improved. I assure him that his four points will be drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction as matters upon which he would no doubt wish to comment to my hon. Friend in writing in due course.
We have from time to time been able to make the statistics available to the House. I know that details of the authorities with the worst records have already been published.
My hon. Friend will recognise also that in the Housing Act 1980 there are provisions to assist short-term lettings of vacant dwellings. Housing authorities would do well to bear in mind that they have the power to deal with vacant dwellings without creating secure tenancies an offer of employment in the authority's area and want temporary accommodation—which have complained bitterly of the inadequacies of central support for their housing programmes would be wise to recall that they have the power under the 1980 Act to deal with some of those who are most in need of accommodation.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the subject in the round as well as making suggestions for improvement. I am grateful to him for doing so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has highlighted the problem of empty local authority dwellings. He started his campaign in a speech that he made in December 1980. He referred to the huge rent and rate losses involved and to the many steps that local authorities can take to bring empty dwellings back into use. An empty dwelling owned by a local authority is, in fact, a sin of omission. There can

be no other way of putting it, because there are now plenty of resources available for the improvement of stock and for the sale of assests and to allow those assets to be ploughed back into the housing stock. There is little excuse for ignoring the prospect of bringing empty dwellings into sensible use.
Ministers have raised the matter at a number of conferences attended by local authority members and council officers under the auspices of such bodies as the Institute of Housing, the Housing Centre Trust and the National Housing and Town Planning Council.
First, I should mention the source from which the Government draw information about empty properties. Local authorities are required to complete forms provided by my Department for the purpose of their annual housing strategy and investment programme. This is the basis of the HIP scheme to which my hon. Friend referred.
In their most recent returns, local authorities in England estimated that in April 1982 there were 100,000 empty local authority dwellings, of which 19,000 had been empty for more than one year. This latter figure is disturbing. The HIP returns also reveal that 34 local authorities had 15,331, or 80 per cent., of the estimated total of 19,000 long-term vacant properties. There are 34 local authorities which have consistently failed to make adequate use of their housing stock in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested. Copies of these returns are placed in the Library, as my hon. Friend will know.
I accept that these figures show that the empty dwellings problem is a major one but only for a minority of authorities. Nearly 80 per cent. of councils in England, whatever their politial persuasion, are achieving a void rate of 2 per cent. or less.
This is not to say, however, that the majority of councils should be complacent about the problem. Within my hon. Friend's constituency, which contains the district council of Lichfield and part of the borough council of Tamworth, HIP returns show that Lichfield reported 109 vacant dwellings on 1 April 1982, of which 10 had been empty for more than a year. Tamworth, on the same date, had 215 vacant dwellings, of which one had been empty for over a year. As a proportion of housing stock, these figures represent void rates of 1·6 per cent. and 2·5 per cent. respectively. My hon. Friend and I may not regard these as being of great significance, but, compared with the previous year at 1 April 1981, Lichfield's void rate rose from 1·3 per cent. to 1·6 per cent. and Tamworth's from 1·8 per cent. to 2·5 per cent.

Mr. Heddle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. What he has just told the House, in effect, highlights the point I am making, because he will recall that in my speech I referred to 50 houses in Glascote road in Tamworth bought by the local authority. I stand to be corrected. They may have been bought by the Staffordshire county council in advance of the proposed rate improvement scheme but they are not revealed in the statistics in the HIP returns which have just been quoted by my hon. Friend.
Whether the properties are owned by the local authority, the Tamworth borough council, or the Staffordshire county council, there is a loophole in the recording procedures which the Department has set up with the local authorities and perhaps the figures are not painting the sort of picture that bears a close relation to reality.

Mr. Shaw: I have to accept that my hon. Friend is right. Inevitably properties move from one ownership to another of because of local circumstances. This may result in void properties as a result of the requirements of another local authority. The Department must operate a national system which is understandable. I think that the HIP system is the most relevant in trying to determine what is happening to housing stock in any district.
The problem of dealing with the monitoring of voids, and indeed with the eradication of voids, is a local one. The Government can only offer advice and, it is hoped, resources, which are available. The question is really one for local determination and local solution, and there is no substitute for the energy with which my hon. Friend pursues local authorities in his constituency in order to find a solution. The trend has not been all that helpful even though the absolute numbers in both Lichfield and Tamworth are relatively small compared with the 34 authorities which have failed to make proper use of their stock. The figures, therefore, should not give cause for alarm.
Let us look more closely at the risks and dangers involved. Voids are both a symptom and a direct cause of difficult-to-let estates. They invariably create a double financial burden on the authority — a loss of rent and rate income and, on top of that, the cost of boarding up and the sometimes enormous additional costs of repairing the ravages of vandalism, to which my hon. Friend has frequently referred. The reduction of the number of empty dwellings to the minimum must be a top management objective of every housing authority and every council.
Dwellings become empty and remain so for varying periods. In many cases, the fact that certain houses are vacant can be fully justified, and indeed the use to which my hon. Friend referred—for example, acquisition for road works—is perfectly justifiable. Some are available to let and some are on offer; some are undergoing or awaiting repair or improvement; some require major structural work; and others are awaiting demolition. But I accept my hon. Friend's point that in many cases short-term lettings to those who are in greatest need can probably provide welcome relief.
Finally, there is a range of miscellaneous reasons. However, when houses are empty for an unnecessarily long time there is justifiable cause for concern.
In considering the problem against the background of my own planning responsibilities, I am convinced that one of the factors that could ease pressure on green belt land and the need to develop greenfield sites is the encouragement and promotion of the maximum use of homes that exist in inner city areas that could and should be occupied. I am sure that my hon. Friend will endorse that view.
The Government's response to this problem has been vigorous and, I trust, effective. We have put forward a wide range of measures to encourage local authorities to make better use of their existing stock of dwellings. These include, among other things, the improvement-for-sale scheme, consents issued to those authorities wishing to waive the interest for a period of mortgages granted for

homesteading, powers for local authorities to guarantee building society mortgages and the consent given both to district and to county councils to sell vacant dwellings at discounts of up to 30 per cent. to priority groups such as first-time buyers. Capitalised repair expenditure on all local authority dwellings is now eligible for housing subsidy.
The Government, too, have been active in offering practical guidance to local authorities. In 1980, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction initiated a study undertaken by my Department's housing services advisory unit of some 40 local authorities and their practices and policies in dealing with the problems of empty dwellings. A report of that study entitled "Reducing the Number of Empty Dwellings" was issued in March 1981. Copies have been sent to every local authority and are available in the House. The study covers rent and rate losses. It examines the problems created by void property, the reasons for voids and recommends various steps that authorities can take. It includes suggestions for void control and includes suggestions for organisation, policies and initiatives to reduce voids. I have no doubt—I trust that my hon. Friend will agree with this — that the Government have provided every possible incentive and form of advice to help efficient housing authorities to avoid the problem of void dwellings.
I remind the House that in 1979, on the related problem of difficult-to-let dwellings, the Government mounted the priority estates projects, which is to run until 1984 and on which reports were published in 1981 and 1982. A main finding of the project is that physical improvement is not enough. Housing management in particular is seen as a key. The Department's film of priority estates, which I hope my hon. Friend has seen — "Tackling Priority Estates" — and which was completed last year, has already been shown to councillors and officers of 294 local authorities in England. My hon. Friend has run a massive campaign which must dramatise the issue of how to deal better with existing housing stock. Illustrated in that film is a series of examples of how authorities have dramatically reduced their void problems by improved security, new letting practices—for example, letting to the elderly or to students rather than to families—and by sales to both individuals and builders.
A number of innovative councils have shown again and again that, with new policies, void dwellings can be reduced and, indeed, eliminated. The Government have set out the local policies that are required to reduce voids in written guidance, in speeches and on film. I urge authorities to give higher priority to putting those policies into effect and to place greater emphasis on achieving in the course of the year a drastic reduction in the 19,000 council houses and flats that have been vacant for more than a year. That is a scandal and there is no reason for avoiding solving it. In raising the issue tonight, my hon. Friend has once again dramatised the importance of so doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.